Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

[Veklim]

Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I've looked through many different discussions and ideas running about these and many other forums, and I'm shocked to see very little encouragement for something simply bigger, more sweeping in both storyline and mutability of gameplay.
I want to see Fable III have a real war, not a civil one. A sword and sorcery version of the crusades, if you like. The choices for a character would be far greater, perhaps even choosing to be from one place or the other. It could be almost like two games in one. You either start in Samarkand and defend your country against the invaders, or you start in Albion and go crusading.
The scope for branching storylines would be massive, you could open up different skills and fighting styles for the different countries. The main story line would still make sense to be roughly the same for both sides, but instead of just growing horns or a halo, or deciding on Skorm/Shadow or Avo/Light, you would instead be deciding greater things. Whether the crusade succeeds or fails, whether entire cities stand, fall or change allegiance.
I want bigger, I want better, I want more choices, but most of all, I want something new. The same old Fable humour, the same comprehensive gameplay, but new ambition for greatness.


All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by.

 

[hobbes_pwn]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I've looked through many different discussions and ideas running about these and many other forums, and I'm shocked to see very little encouragement for something simply bigger, more sweeping in both storyline and mutability of gameplay.
I want to see Fable III have a real war, not a civil one. A sword and sorcery version of the crusades, if you like. The choices for a character would be far greater, perhaps even choosing to be from one place or the other. It could be almost like two games in one. You either start in Samarkand and defend your country against the invaders, or you start in Albion and go crusading.
The scope for branching storylines would be massive, you could open up different skills and fighting styles for the different countries. The main story line would still make sense to be roughly the same for both sides, but instead of just growing horns or a halo, or deciding on Skorm/Shadow or Avo/Light, you would instead be deciding greater things. Whether the crusade succeeds or fails, whether entire cities stand, fall or change allegiance.
I want bigger, I want better, I want more choices, but most of all, I want something new. The same old Fable humour, the same comprehensive gameplay, but new ambition for greatness.


All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by.

I am quite sure you can start wars, personally i am hoping your 'kingdom' can ever be a violent bloodthirsty kingdom, a failed kingdom (starting civil wars) or a peacefull kingdom (plenty of allies and no wars started.)

Im sure the kingdom thing will have some light maybe not to such aa bigger scale

 

[The Pirate King]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Indeed why not both? I like that idea. Having a ship, whith guards abored.(Though I would prefer Pirates) leading them into a war. Being a King/Pirate. Into a sword battle. Ruling the land, making friends. Betraling them. I'm pretty sure they might keep the halo/horns. Unless they make some new thing for it.

 

[Zjuggernaut]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I doubt they'd put Samarkand in Fable 3 because it's based around you ruling Albion. Fable 4 would be good to have a cross-over. I've always had the same thoughts with Elder Scrolls as well. It's a good idea.

 

[joslen1]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I agree, Samarkand would be great in a Fable series, but i would really like it if they brought back the Court of Blades from Fable

 

[Cain]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I've looked through many different discussions and ideas running about these and many other forums, and I'm shocked to see very little encouragement for something simply bigger, more sweeping in both storyline and mutability of gameplay.
I want to see Fable III have a real war, not a civil one. A sword and sorcery version of the crusades, if you like. The choices for a character would be far greater, perhaps even choosing to be from one place or the other. It could be almost like two games in one. You either start in Samarkand and defend your country against the invaders, or you start in Albion and go crusading.
The scope for branching storylines would be massive, you could open up different skills and fighting styles for the different countries. The main story line would still make sense to be roughly the same for both sides, but instead of just growing horns or a halo, or deciding on Skorm/Shadow or Avo/Light, you would instead be deciding greater things. Whether the crusade succeeds or fails, whether entire cities stand, fall or change allegiance.
I want bigger, I want better, I want more choices, but most of all, I want something new. The same old Fable humour, the same comprehensive gameplay, but new ambition for greatness.


All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by.

A civil war is a real war. Thats why its got war in the name. Starting in smarkand would be a bad idea, because:

1.People will complain that Fable III is going away from the original idea of fable. Going there later maybe but not starting there.

2. Lionhead might have the people of samarkand as really poor and so somebody might say,"Hey, thats racist". Coz the people of samarkand are black.

And the crusades weren't a real war. Most of the men there died(The english men, coz the arabian doctors were actually good at there job) from disease instead of by the sword. And why would albion be invading samarkand. Its never been said that they are at war and in fable, Thunder and whisper arrive in ablion by stowing away on a trade ship so we know they trade.

 

[Skotekal]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

It isn't going away form the the original idea of Fable. The game is based on a hero and his choices. Samarkand is just a different land.

And the only person who would point it out as a racist move by Lionhead is an idiot.

And by "real war" I think he meant more of a full scale war. Like Albion and Samarkand at war. Civil War is just a small war within a country. Well, he could mean something else, but maybe not. Just taking a stab at it.

 

[Walker]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I feel the need to stick my (very long) oar in, so: For one thing, a civil war of some kind has been heavily hinted at by Lionhead, with all the junk about revolutionaries, and PM going "oh, look at these Somali brothers who lead opposite sides of their civil war" and all.

I would prefer to avoid crusades because, well, they don't make all that much sense. No one is likely to go kill people because they don't worship the Light. The Shadow-worshippers might. For a crusade to make sense, the setup of Albionese rligion would have to change or they'd have to insert a new religion for another nation.

Plus, the previous statement about racism was absurd, but "crusade" IS a fairly heavy word. It can have lots of unpleasant connotations.

Actually starting in Samarkand is unlikely, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did end up going elsewhere for limited portions of the story, or having them come to us. But Fable is essentially the story of Albion-- not Samarkand.

Oh, and White Knight? "It's not a real war because more men died from disease than sword-wounds" is A) probably missing the point and B) disqualifies lots of wars from being "real wars." Up until WWI, it was fairly typical that you'd lose more to disease than to enemy action, and even in WWI the medical service wasn't all that good. You could still end up dead or missing body parts because you caught gangrene in the hospital or some nasty disease in the trenches, or even the flu.

 

[AON of Greatnes]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

you put him in his place! if the pulled it off right yer man at the tops idea'd be the best thing since the cup of cha! except maybe not a crusade just an all out war. hang on, why can there be only one story in f3? how about a civil war, you pick your side, and then samarkand attack when we're ditracted 'cause they've always hated us and our straight swords. he he he...

 

[Necromancer]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

A civil war in Albion seems fine for Fable, but if there was a war between Albion and Samarkand, it seems to me like it wouldn't be as 'Fabley'.

Although, I think Samarkand will be involved in Fable 3. I forgot where, but I read somewhere that you would travel outside Albion (Not 100% sure if they said Samarkand was the outside area you would go to). But starting in Samarkand seems absurd to me, seeing as how they've already confirmed that you become the ruler of Albion.

 

[Joshman]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Huh... I really am still scratching my head on what time period it is. ::scratchs head::

 

[Cain]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Its set 50 years after fable 2 Joshman

 

[maddog]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Why dont they do spinoff on Samarkand

 

[AON of Greatnes]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

seriously, why not a civil and a major war, like if after the civil war your brother or whatever went to samarkand and found out he had a talent for whipping up crowds but you don't find out till later that the samarkand invader is actually your brother and it's a major twist!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Veklim]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Alright, I should clarify a couple of things. When I said crusade, I simply meant an idealistic war, not a resource based one. It has happened repeatedly through history that when two major powers in the world have different theological and social ideologies they will almost inevitably clash. The crusade thing was simply a reference to the feel of the game, not the political or racial connotations.
A civil war is small and bloody by nature, but if Lionhead were to continue with the idea of dynamic environments then by the end of the game there would be few people left to fight. If they do go for the civil war (something just as exciting a prospect in my mind) then there is no reason another nation wouldn't take advantage. Perhaps start with your rise to power during a civil war, then the repelling of invasion by a foreign force.
Samarkand has always seemed like somewhere the game wanted to take you. It is repeatedly mentioned, you meet people from there and even legends reference it. Thing is, Albion is just a name used for Britain between circa 4th century BC and circa 13th century AD. This just so happens to tie in with the period of time that Samarkand (a real place you must remember) was under Arab control, largely islamic, and therefore involved in a series of small wars called the crusades.
Ultimately, I'm just looking forward to F3 and will be playing it the moment it arrives in the UK.

 

[Walker]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

A few comments. For one thing, Samarkand didn't fall under the control of the Arabs until the 8th century, the 700s. For another, it was (probably, I'm just guessing) not involved heavily in the crusades, since it's A) Very far to the east, and B) Ended up getting sacked by the Mongols in the 13th century, about seventy years before the end of the 200-year-long crusading period.

For another thing, Fable hasn't been set in a time remotely resembling the 13th century since Fable 1. And even then it always seemed more 16th century to me.

For another, very few wars are actually all that idealistic. They are all more commonly caused by reasons of power and politics, then get ideals slapped on top.

And... on the matter of Civil Wars being small compared to other wars, let's use an example: American Civil War vs. Franco-Prussian war. About six years apart. Civil War: 1 million Rebels, 2 million Union. Franco-Prussian: French: 500,000, Prussian: 300,000. Plus militia French: 400,000 French, 900,000 Prussian. The American Civil War had higher numbers of troops, and a slightly higher body count-- 200,000-some total to the Franco-Prussian war body count of 184,000.

If you've studied the two wars any you'll know that they were very different conflicts, but just look at them. Your generalization really doesn't hold up.

(Oh, and no, I'm not sure about your timespan for the use of the term "Albion.")

Though I don't really disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I take umbrage at the way you say it.

 

[Veklim]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Points taken!
I'm more familiar with Tamerlane's Samarkand than anything else to be honest, and being British, not American, I can only draw really on the history I know.
I know Albion was still a common name of reference in the tenth century, after that it seems to get shady, I only know there are much later uses before it slipped into 'poetic' use.
I do apologise for any offense you may have taken though, it's not my aim to cause ire.

All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to sail her by.

 

[Walker]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

And... I don't actually know that much about Samarkand. Because Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. But I do have some general knowledge about military history, which is why I took issue with what you said about wars and civil wars.

But from Wikipedia, there wasn't much overlap between "Albion," the crusades, and the general look of the era in Fable. Sure, Fable 1's look and tech level and "Albion" and the Crusades overlapped a bit, but... [shrugs].

And no, I don't know why I'm still trying to argue. I can't take a hint, I guess.

 

[led_zepp123]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

Just watched those videos on youtue where PM makes his "BIG ANOUNCMENTS" and he said that the albion we know is just one small continent in the world of fable and that we may see alot more.

Heres a link to the youtbe videos. it says its the full version but i doubt it the one i whatched last night (which i cant find now) was in four parts.

THIS DEFINATLY A SPOILER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx39aFtRQH8

 

[Veklim]

Re: Albion or Samarkand...why not both?

I thought the joy of a fantasy setting was to not get too obsessed with historical accuracy. I understand you getting a bee in your bonnet but dude, it's just a forum!
I wouldn't trust a single word on wikipedia btw, look up stuff you know a lot about some time, the inconsistencies, anomalies and outright fiction can be shocking.