Mad.

[Chicken Chaser]

Mad.

Is anyone else ticked off by the screen shots? I know it's early but it looks exactly the same, I swear by the look of it I will feel like I'm playing a DLC.

 

[Necromancer]

Re: Mad.

Well, you can't exactly expect as dramatic of a change as TLC -> Fable 2. The reason they look so different is because they had to switch consoles and game engines. They had to build the game from the ground up. They wouldn't do that again now that they have the chance to use the same game engine. Much of their work is already done for them, like modeling for example.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Re: Mad.

Yeah, it will look pretty much the same, because the samegame engine is being used. Other than that, the game will have a different feel I reckon, more creepy and industrialised. Oh, welcome back btw, havent seen you in ages!

 

[Fablepower]

Re: Mad.

Its the same engine.
So dont expect massive improvements on the graphical side of things.
Fable 2 Look great anyway, I'm expecting Fable 3 to be sharper in detail.

 

[Daemon300]

Re: Mad.

Is anyone else ticked off by the screen shots? I know it's early but it looks exactly the same, I swear by the look of it I will feel like I'm playing a DLC.

So? You didn't like Fable II?

 

[Arseface]

Re: Mad.

AC I and AC II looked alomst exactly the same, differences in the setting nonwithstanding. Still two great, yet different games.

 

[The Midnight Avenger]

Re: Mad.

If anything made me upset I can tell you it was Fable 2. III has to be better.

 

[Aions]

Re: Mad.

AC I and AC II looked alomst exactly the same, differences in the setting nonwithstanding. Still two great, yet different games.

^this

sand box games can get away with it

also fable 2 loked amazing, buggy but it looked good

 

[WanderingWizard]

Re: Mad.

If anything made me upset I can tell you it was Fable 2. III has to be better.

Why did you not like Fable II?

 

[The Midnight Avenger]

Re: Mad.

Why did you not like Fable II?

For many reasons, actually. Although for the most part all the little bugs kind of got to me after a while, it's like poison oak - very irritating, and if you keep scratching it you risk spreading it, even to the eyeballs. Which is exactly how I feel about Fable 2 these days. It's as though my eyes puffed like a balloon after an allergic reaction from shellfish, very scary experience.

Then there's all the things Lionhead didn't do or failed to add, or just outright failed - like multiplayer! It's so bad I end up hating Fable for practically months, or until I have more free time. Talk about allergic shellfish reactions, II's multiplayer camera will most definitely give you one - though I'm sure you all know how tedious it can be.

To me, looking at Fable 2 in general, it just seems like an unfinished "expert" college boy project. You do things that end with you asking the inevitable question "why". It's enough to drive you back to Fable 1... but would I ever go back to prehistory? No, as much as I seem to rag on II, I'd have to say it's quite advanced to the first in many, many ways. Though, I couldn't help but notice Lionhead failed to include two-hander swords, again, another "why" question.

 

[sfroggy1]

Re: Mad.

I only look at them as "early-days" screen shots tbh. When GTA 4 posted their first screenies many people I knew thought "that looks ****in' **** !" I agreed at the time but look how amazing it turned out to be. Screenshots like the ones for Fable III that have only just been released are only preliminary. The game isn't completely finished. Who's to say that they won't fine tune it and make the game look 'sharper' when it is finally released.

Also I couldn't care less if it didn't look any better than Fable II, graphics wise. I'm gonna buy this game purely based on gameplay and I feel more than just obligated to by Fable III because the story is pretty kick-ass

 

[SimonKalevra]

Re: Mad.

What I hated the most about Fable II was the feel of the hero when he ran. it felt like he was just hovering above the ground or something - running on ice.
I can tell by the videos that hasn't changed - which is, to me, very sad

I can only hope they won't make my hero fat as he gain strength.

But yeah, I can't help but feel like they are making a big new DLC, cause so far nothing has impressed me.

 

[Chicken Chaser]

Re: Mad.

Honestly it wasn't graphics wise that made me angry, it was the look of the gameplay, it looks exactly the same, I know there using the same engine but it is not hard to change things.

 

[WanderingWizard]

Re: Mad.

I was maily upset by the fact that your couldn't sneak or pick locks in Fable II... and if you did gain entry to someone's house while they were asleep to brutally murder them and slowly manopalise the world, they weren't asleep in bed!! They just weren't there!

I did, however, LOVE fable II. I didn't begrudge the multiplayer aspect as I viewed it as a novely add-on in a single player game, like playing Oblivion in third person. The set camera angle gave it a sort of Baldur's Gate feel.

 

[Necromancer]

Re: Mad.

For many reasons, actually. Although for the most part all the little bugs kind of got to me after a while, it's like poison oak - very irritating, and if you keep scratching it you risk spreading it, even to the eyeballs. Which is exactly how I feel about Fable 2 these days. It's as though my eyes puffed like a balloon after an allergic reaction from shellfish, very scary experience.

You just have to know how to avoid the glitches, it's not that difficult. I've beaten the game 24 times, I've only gotten two glitches (only one was game-breaking, happened on my first game), and I've only had each one happen once.

Then there's all the things Lionhead didn't do or failed to add, or just outright failed - like multiplayer! It's so bad I end up hating Fable for practically months, or until I have more free time. Talk about allergic shellfish reactions, II's multiplayer camera will most definitely give you one - though I'm sure you all know how tedious it can be.

I will admit the multiplayer isn't as good as it could have been, but you wouldn't spend the majority of the game online or on offline co-op. The camera is really the only thing wrong with it anyway, and that's only a minor setback.

You do things that end with you asking the inevitable question "why".

I am intrigued by this statement. What exactly do you mean by it? To me it just seems like some generic bullsh*t that can be applied to anything you dislike when you only have two other small reasons not to like it.

 

[Rheckameohs]

Re: Mad.

Just so you'd know, Gears of War and Hears of War II used the same engine, and the sequel turned out to look better than the original.

Basically, I'm sure the engine has been modified since Fable II, so there's a rather large chance that Fable III will actually look better and more detailed than its predecessor. Take this screencap, for instance:

The scenery produced here was rendered in much higher detail than anything in Fable II. This is why I believe that Fable III is going to be graphically superior.

 

[Aions]

Re: Mad.

What I hated the most about Fable II was the feel of the hero when he ran. it felt like he was just hovering above the ground or something - running on ice.
I can tell by the videos that hasn't changed - which is, to me, very sad

^ very very ture

Just so you'd know, Gears of War and Hears of War II used the same engine, and the sequel turned out to look better than the original.

Basically, I'm sure the engine has been modified since Fable II, so there's a rather large chance that Fable III will actually look better and more detailed than its predecessor. Take this screencap, for instance:

The scenery produced here was rendered in much higher detail than anything in Fable II. This is why I believe that Fable III is going to be graphically superior.

^DAM WINGS!!

 

[Devil Keyz]

Re: Mad.

yea they can't do much better in terms of graphics, only make a few objects more round and sharper more detailed textures.

 

[Zebinia]

Re: Mad.

You just have to know how to avoid the glitches, it's not that difficult. I've beaten the game 24 times, I've only gotten two glitches (only one was game-breaking, happened on my first game), and I've only had each one happen once.



I will admit the multiplayer isn't as good as it could have been, but you wouldn't spend the majority of the game online or on offline co-op. The camera is really the only thing wrong with it anyway, and that's only a minor setback.



I am intrigued by this statement. What exactly do you mean by it? To me it just seems like some generic bullsh*t that can be applied to anything you dislike when you only have two other small reasons not to like it.

You give the multiplayer way too much credit I'm sorry. It was a terrible un playable mess. Especially considering it was supposed to be one of he three major announcements that PM made about the game. When one of the things you are hyping ends up failing? That's more than a minor set back.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

Re: Mad.

You give the multiplayer way too much credit I'm sorry. It was a terrible un playable mess. Especially considering it was supposed to be one of he three major announcements that PM made about the game. When one of the things you are hyping ends up failing? That's more than a minor set back.

True, however most of the faults with the Fable II multiplayer have been confirmed to have been fixed.
A) You're actual hero can be transfered to a friends game.
B) You're dog can come too.