Fable -1

[StealthJ]

Fable -1

I were thinking about fable when I had this idea.
After fable 3 lionhead could think about Fable -1 which would be set a few years before fable or a few hundred years.
It's midnight so ideas come randomly and I can't explain all on iPod.

 

[DarkONI]

Re: Fable -1

I were thinking about fable when I had this idea.
After fable 3 lionhead could think about Fable -1 which would be set a few years before fable or a few hundred years.
It's midnight so ideas come randomly and I can't explain all on iPod.

Your idea has been shared amongst the Fable communities since the announcement (and before) of Fable III. However, this is discussed mostly around the Fable III section.

However, let me say it again: there won't be any prequels of Fable. The main point of Fable is the freedom of decision, that what you choose will not just change you (in many different ways) However, it will also change the world that surrounds you and the people in the way they behave and live their daily life in Albion.

When it comes to prequels, there's no such freedom: the story is known, the events are known and the outcomes are known. There's no fantasy, no fashion. Just a simple action-game that's trying to wear a RPG mask.

That's why, there won't be any prequels of Fable. Ever.

 

[Arseface]

Re: Fable -1

I disagree Dark. The history of Albion is not so well known as to completely exclude any freedom when it comes to a story set before Fable 1. We don't have to play some well known figure from the Albion world like Nostro, or William Black. They could set it in between Fable 1 and Fable II, during the fall of the guild. Sure, we know what the eventual outcome will be, but that doesn't mean we can't try to stop it in our own way.

 

[DarkONI]

Re: Fable -1

I disagree Dark. The history of Albion is not so well known as to completely exclude any freedom when it comes to a story set before Fable 1. We don't have to play some well known figure from the Albion world like Nostro, or William Black. They could set it in between Fable 1 and Fable II, during the fall of the guild. Sure, we know what the eventual outcome will be, but that doesn't mean we can't try to stop it in our own way.

That would still be a prequel. There's no need for a prequel in Fable, the story is known enough, a prequel would just limit the player into many ways other than creating many, many lore paradoxes (and Fable has some already)

I don't see why people keep focusing on a prequel, there cannot be a prequel for many reasons. For example, if we play in a period like the Fall of Guild, there won't be anything we can do. I mean, what's the point to create a game that you know the story and the game focuses on decisions and outcomes.

Fable needs a changing world, something that changes, when the story has a solid end then the player is limited in his/her decisions and the possible outcomes he/she will see.

 

[Arseface]

Re: Fable -1

You already know how it will end: the player will win. We all knew Anakin would turn into Darth Vader, but that didn't stop the latest movies from being successful, or enjoyable. I don't see why you need to be able to change the future for a game to be enjoyable. You could still be able to change the world in a short term way during the fall of the guild. They could just even have the fall of the guild as a backdrop for another story, which I think I'd prefer anyway. They don't have to limit themselves in such a way, they're going to **** off people anyway.

 

[DarkONI]

Re: Fable -1

You already know how it will end: the player will win. We all knew Anakin would turn into Darth Vader, but that didn't stop the latest movies from being successful, or enjoyable. I don't see why you need to be able to change the future for a game to be enjoyable. You could still be able to change the world in a short term way during the fall of the guild. They could just even have the fall of the guild as a backdrop for another story, which I think I'd prefer anyway. They don't have to limit themselves in such a way, they're going to **** off people anyway.

That's the main problem. Fable isn't a movie, Fable is an action-rpg. Focusing on more on action (than what it already does) Would simply ruin the game.

Things such as prequels are things that fans always ask from a game series. However, the truth is that when you want the next game into a series, you want it to be a good game.

When you purchase an Action-RPG game and you know what happens then you don't see the point into playing this game. RPG's are the ones that hardly can go into prequels and lets keep in mind that Fable still has some RPG roots in it.

That's not about limiting, that's about the best way to design a good game that your players will enjoy and likely play.

 

[Arseface]

Re: Fable -1

I'd play it, and I bet a good number of other people would as well. It's the gameplay that is the main focus of a game, not the story line. If it's compiled well, then it will be enjoyable despite it's storyline. Of course, they could make the storyline really good if they wanted too, but you seem to disagree with me.

 

[Alli001]

Re: Fable -1

The outcome of the game can be the same but the way the player reaches it can be different, like a good or evil method. So the game can go through many different story lines which all come to one point, the guild being destroyed.

 

[Arch]

Re: Fable -1

What if you can travel to past , in Fable IV ? Just to do one quest or to see what happened to some places ... would be cool ...

 

[Arseface]

Re: Fable -1

I wouldn't enjoy Lionhead messing with causality like that.