Oakvale

[ChickenChaser]

Oakvale

I would like to see Oakvale back in fable 3.

 

[Evan]

Re: Oakvale

or the rebuilding of it could be a project you could promise to people during your climb to power

 

[tjbyrum1]

Re: Oakvale

Oakfield never met up to its coolness.

I mean, Oakfield was a rip-off of Oakvale. I miss it... T_T....

But oh well. It is that bastard Reaver's fault. You know what, I hate Reaver, he killed Barnum. I liked Barnum. (Insert mime's sad face hear).

I do like the idea of having Oakvale back though. A nice touch...

 

[Evan]

Re: Oakvale

well oakfeild was built by the survivors of oakvale so less population doesnt ensure that its quality will meet with oakvales. threr werent much house and oakfeild cuz there didnt need to be.

 

[Lady]

Re: Oakvale

But oh well. It is that bastard Reaver's fault. You know what, I hate Reaver, he killed Barnum. I liked Barnum. (Insert mime's sad face hear).

I find this to be a much more pressing comment, and will stray from the original thread theme for a short while to address it.

For one, Oakvale had already been burnt down before by Twinblade* all those years ago, before the Fable I character could even defend himself. In this regard, Oakvale was rebuilt and new inhabitants took over, with a few of the survivors. Is this not the same with Oakfield?* Sure, it is far from being the same tranquil village (let alone the same proximity), but it exists as a reminder that "Life" moves on. Secondly, five-hundred years, - or rather close to three-hundred, in approximation with Reaver's age in regard to the destruction of Oakvale, - promotes the inevitability of change - Oakvale could never be the Oakvale the Players' remember. If Reaver had remained the simpleton he originated as, the possibility that another would "not" come to alter what once was is very unlikely. It is what it is.

As for Reaver himself, I believe your own reaction is proof to the strength of his character. Could Hammer ever truly cause the Player to "feel" in consequence to a simple game (oxymoron, as Fable II is rather complex by nature)? Hate is a strong emotion, where "like" (as opposed to Love) is a pleasant but not particularly altering one. It is this that makes Reaver an Immortal Figure in the gaming world, rather than an Immortal Character in the pixilated World of Fable.

Besides, if you have to "blame" someone for Oakvale's destruction, why not the developers themselves?* Reaver didn't just sneak into Peter's bed one night whispering devious little suggestions on how to make those "500 years" more interesting...

Or at least, I hope not.

As for the topic itself, I would not be extremely affected by either side. If Oakvale returns, "Whoopie!" If it doesn't, "Moving on!"

Edit:

As I don't believe in altering my mistakes, I will point the ones Purple Nurple gratefully revealed.
1) Twinblade should be Jack of Blades.
2) In response to Purple Nurple's inquiry, I did not mean "burnt down" but "re-established." Oakvale had been rebuilt in response to an early-game catastrophy, in "this" regard, Oakfield was build in response to Oakvale's ultimate demise.
3) Completely sarcastic in order to add the next statement, this is not meant to be taken in all seriousness. It is, however, the Developers who decide the fate of all within "their" game for the Players to enjoy or loathe.

 

[Evil Pakman]

Re: Oakvale

I find this to be a much more pressing comment, and will stray from the original thread theme for a short while to address it.

For one, Oakvale had already been burnt down before by Twinblade all those years ago, before the Fable I character could even defend himself. In this regard, Oakvale was rebuilt and new inhabitants took over, with a few of the survivors. Is this not the same with Oakfield? Sure, it is far from being the same tranquil village (let alone the same proximity), but it exists as a reminder that "Life" moves on. Secondly, five-hundred years, - or rather close to three-hundred, in approximation with Reaver's age in regard to the destruction of Oakvale, - promotes the inevitability of change - Oakvale could never be the Oakvale the Players' remember. If Reaver had remained the simpleton he originated as, the possibility that another would "not" come to alter what once was is very unlikely. It is what it is.

As for Reaver himself, I believe your own reaction is proof to the strength of his character. Could Hammer ever truly cause the Player to "feel" in consequence to a simple game (oxymoron, as Fable II is rather complex by nature)? Hate is a strong emotion, where "like" (as opposed to Love) is a pleasant but not particularly altering one. It is this that makes Reaver an Immortal Figure in the gaming world, rather than an Immortal Character in the pixilated World of Fable.

Besides, if you have to "blame" someone for Oakvale's destruction, why not the developers themselves? Reaver didn't just sneak into Peter's bed one night whispering devious little suggestions on how to make those "500 years" more interesting...

Or at least, I hope not.

As for the topic itself, I would not be extremely affected by either side. If Oakvale returns, "Whoopie!" If it doesn't, "Moving on!"

god when ever i see a post by you i love it for some reason,oh well thats me i like a story,anyway back on topic
oakvale was...good...and now....umm..darth vader!.....has to...destroy it and uhh...you have to kill him I WIN!

 

[numb3rs]

Re: Oakvale

possibly, but i doubt it
the only way i can see it being free'd from the shadow court is if reaver died, that might possibly be a choice in Fable 3, either letting him die, and saving an entire town, or letting him live
it would be quite a moral dilemma as either way your going to condemn something, either way theres an "evil" choice

 

[Rheckameohs]

Re: Oakvale

Hm, never cared much for Oakvale, really. When I saw it all FUBAR in Wraithmarsh, I was punched with a profound sense of nostalgia, but nothing beyond that. I would like the option of rebuilding it as one of your many projects as king, though.

 

[Necromancer]

Re: Oakvale

Whether it returns or not, Oakvale will make some kind of appearance in Fable 3. In my opinion, there are five possibilities:

1. Oakvale has been rebuild between Fable 2 and Fable 3.

2. The player has the option of rebuilding Oakvale as king or queen.

3. Reaver helps the Hero rebuild Oakvale so it looks like it did before since he would remember it.

4. Reaver and/or the Shadow Court dies, thus freeing Oakvale and bringing life back to what is now Wraithmarsh.

5. Oakvale is just briefly mentioned and has no real impact on the story or side quests (like in Fable 2).

Obviously you would be able to choose whether or not you do #2, 3, or 4.

it would be quite a moral dilemma as either way your going to condemn something, either way theres an "evil" choice

This dips into a morally gray area, and if this is what will happen in Fable 3, I will be very excited to see how the developers deal with it. On one hand, killing Reaver can be seen as a good choice because you're bringing back all of Oakvale, and Reaver deserves to die for all the chaos, havoc, and death he's caused. On the other hand, it can be seen as an evil choice because you're taking a life while you could choose not to, and bringing back Oakvale might not make up for it because you wouldn't actually be killing the people of Oakvale by choosing the other choice. They're already dead.

Choosing to let Reaver live and keep Oakvale destroyed can be seen as good or evil as well. It can be seen as a good choice because you're sparing Reaver's life while not actually killing the people of Oakvale because they're already dead. And it could be seen as an evil choice because you're passing up the opportunity to kill someone who truly deserves death and to revive an entire town. Although, because you're just passing up an opportunity to do this and you're actually not changing anything, it could be seen as neither. Argh! It's all so complex!

Perhaps your choices will be monitored throughout the game and they will determine how your Hero views this kind of decision, and they will influence whether you get good or evil points for the choice you make.

 

[numb3rs]

Re: Oakvale

^ exactly what i was thinking

 

[Purple Nurple]

Re: Oakvale

I find this to be a much more pressing comment, and will stray from the original thread theme for a short while to address it.

For one, Oakvale had already been burnt down before by Twinblade all those years ago, before the Fable I character could even defend himself. In this regard, Oakvale was rebuilt and new inhabitants took over, with a few of the survivors. Is this not the same with Oakfield? Sure, it is far from being the same tranquil village (let alone the same proximity), but it exists as a reminder that "Life" moves on. Secondly, five-hundred years, - or rather close to three-hundred, in approximation with Reaver's age in regard to the destruction of Oakvale, - promotes the inevitability of change - Oakvale could never be the Oakvale the Players' remember. If Reaver had remained the simpleton he originated as, the possibility that another would "not" come to alter what once was is very unlikely. It is what it is.

As for Reaver himself, I believe your own reaction is proof to the strength of his character. Could Hammer ever truly cause the Player to "feel" in consequence to a simple game (oxymoron, as Fable II is rather complex by nature)? Hate is a strong emotion, where "like" (as opposed to Love) is a pleasant but not particularly altering one. It is this that makes Reaver an Immortal Figure in the gaming world, rather than an Immortal Character in the pixilated World of Fable.

Besides, if you have to "blame" someone for Oakvale's destruction, why not the developers themselves? Reaver didn't just sneak into Peter's bed one night whispering devious little suggestions on how to make those "500 years" more interesting...

Or at least, I hope not.

As for the topic itself, I would not be extremely affected by either side. If Oakvale returns, "Whoopie!" If it doesn't, "Moving on!"

1. Twinblade never destroyed Oakvale - the bandit raid was led by JoB.

2. I can't remember Oakfield being burnt down and being rebuilt...

3. Agreed. Instead of dwelling on things that won't change, people need to accept that that certain situation has occured, and that no level of desperate whining to the dev team will change that.

4. True, although personally I thought Reaver was awesome. Surely a character that conditionally effects BOTH sides of the spectrum in equal fortitude has a decent effect on the players emotions - of course. Which is why Lionhead are bringing back Reaver.

5. The dev team try to listen to people's ups and downs of the game - they did it with Fable 2, and I know they will do it with Fable 3. By addressing certain game mechanics or characters, the dev team has a guide as to what people would like to change.

 

[Arseface]

Re: Oakvale

Doubt it. I can't really see it coming back, not in Fable III at least, considering the nasties that got it prior to Fable II, but I can see it being avenged.