Temple of Light?

[Yerik]

is there one?

 

[KaveX]

Nope. The Temple of Shadows isn't either. But there is an evil 'temple' type thing in Mourningwood.

 

[MaleficRaven]

Nope. The Temple of Shadows isn't either. But there is an evil 'temple' type thing in Mourningwood.

That IS the Temple of Shadows.

 

[blazefire17]

That IS the Temple of Shadows.

Your correct, the quest set is reinstating the temple of shadows, obviously it isnt the same one from F2 though.

 

[MaleficRaven]

Your correct, the quest set is reinstating the temple of shadows, obviously it isnt the same one from F2 though.

That contradicts what you just said. It can't be the one from the original so that only leaves Fable II.

 

[blazefire17]

That contradicts what you just said. It can't be the one from the original so that only leaves Fable II.

Your tunring this into way more than it is, your reinstating the temple of shadows, but there is no way in hell it is the one from fable 2, and i dont think its from the original because i dont think morningwood is were darkwood use to be.

 

[MaleficRaven]

Your tunring this into way more than it is, your reinstating the temple of shadows, but there is no way in hell it is the one from fable 2, and i dont think its from the original because i dont think morningwood is were darkwood use to be.

It has to be from one of the two because you can't reinstate anything unless it was already there before! Given its location, the man trying to restore it and the way it looks, I definitely say it's from Fable II.

 

[Syth the old one]

well as rever seemed to have nicked the property of the temple of shadows from fable 2 and seeing tntohe world is diving deeper and deeper into depression and darkness people are more likly to try and reenstate the temple of shadows over the temple of light and does anyone know where to get the ToS acolites robes because they look awesome

 

[blazefire17]

It has to be from one of the two because you can't reinstate anything unless it was already there before! Given its location, the man trying to restore it and the way it looks, I definitely say it's from Fable II.

What im saying is that it cant be, that one from fable 2 was on a huge plat--to, so it wouldnt just be on solide full ground now, its impossible especially in 50 years

 

[MaleficRaven]

What im saying is that it cant be, that one from fable 2 was on a huge plat--to, so it wouldnt just be on solide full ground now, its impossible especially in 50 years

And Bowerstone doesn't look the same as it did in Fable II or the original. Things change, all the time.

 

[Dracelix]

And Bowerstone doesn't look the same as it did in Fable II or the original. Things change, all the time.

he means the temple was suspended on a huge column with a bridge leading to it. and sea and beach at the bottom. so it is unlikely is could be it.
i would prefer it to be the f1 temple. though the f2 temple was nicer.

 

[MaleficRaven]

he means the temple was suspended on a huge column with a bridge leading to it. and sea and beach at the bottom. so it is unlikely is could be it.
i would prefer it to be the f1 temple. though the f2 temple was nicer.

And I already said that there are a LOT of inconsistencies in all three games.

 

[Dracelix]

And I already said that there are a LOT of inconsistencies in all three games.

yeah. i think it would just be easier if lionhead release some sort of map animation showing where and how locations move and change across the 550 years

 

[MaleficRaven]

yeah. i think it would just be easier if lionhead release some sort of map animation showing where and how locations move and change across the 550 years

Except there would probably still be a great deal of inconsistencies with it.

 

[Dracelix]

well, it could easily as just be explain by scythe/william black still being alive.
since his will can change landscapes

 

[blazefire17]

And Bowerstone doesn't look the same as it did in Fable II or the original. Things change, all the time.

It was in the middle of the ocean, its not the one on fable 3, nuff said

well, it could easily as just be explain by scythe/william black still being alive.
since his will can change landscapes

Thank u, now plz assist me in tellin him this, and as for it being the one off F1, i think it is cuz that one was no were near the ocean and the one off F3 isnt either, and its long been abandoned

 

[MaleficRaven]

It was in the middle of the ocean, its not the one on fable 3, nuff said

Thank u, now plz assist me in tellin him this, and as for it being the one off F1, i think it is cuz that one was no were near the ocean and the one off F3 isnt either, and its long been abandoned

The Temple of Shadows was NOT in the middle of the ocean. Go back and actually play the game. Besides, even if it was, it would explain the temple itself was buried and needed uncovering.

 

[Archmenel]

If there were some bloody consistency with the maps.

From what I gathered when playing Fable II and comparing that map to Fable - Rookridge and the Temple of Shadows was nearly direct North of Bowerstone (Gibbet Woods and Windmill Hill), which isn't even shown on the Fable III map. Bower Lake, Millfields, was supposed to be East, which it is.

Morningwood looks to be in the middle - between Bower Lake and Bowerstone.

That would place Driftwood where the Bandit Coast was, Silverpines clearly in Brightwood. Ugh, this map.

The Chapel of Skorm from Fable was located in Darkwood, which became the southern most part of Brightwood/Wraithmarsh (as they are connected but not by roads), correct? Which should be South and East from Bowerstone. And does not exist, whatsoever, on this new map.

These maps have me miffed. Just why are the four sections of Bowerstone so far apart now? How is there enough room on this compacted map for a Brightwood/Greatwood to exist? Let alone the region that was once known as Darkwood/Oakvale (Wraithmarsh), and Twinblade's Region/Bloodstone.

If anyone has a copy of the maps from Fable and Fable II, take a look. Then take a glimpse at the map table in Fable III and compare. They cut an entire piece, nearly half of Albion off...completely, so they could throw that giant plain of sand into the game.

Not much bothers me; I can understand little contradictions but how can you do this to a map? The in-game books from Fable II attempted to rectify many of the inconsistencies by taking notice of the shoddy work conducted by previous generations - fine, yes I can comprehend that - consider what early maps in the real world looked like. However, for a map to change so drastically in a little over a generation - for an entire region to disappear and suddenly a new continent being shoved against it. Pah.

Bad work. Not good at all. And shame on Lionhead. Please keep a little consistency, please. Some of us are very good with maps and think it not too much to ask that they be kept somewhat believable.

 

[blazefire17]

The Temple of Shadows was NOT in the middle of the ocean. Go back and actually play the game. Besides, even if it was, it would explain the temple itself was buried and needed uncovering.

First off dont tell me to go play the game, secondly by sayin in the middle of the ocean, i mean water on all four sides of it, EXACLY why the bridge connected it, so maby u need to go play the game, what would explain the temple being buried and stuff? its not the one from F2, so get over it, i actually dont think its even the one from F1, the one from f2 would not be under ground in 50 years, if anything its either still there or under the ocean

 

[Archmenel]

Well, if we are to attempt to scry some measure of truth from the maps all-together - that place in Mourningwood is most certainly not the Chapel of Skorm. It simply cannot be. Skorm was located far South and East from Bowerstone in the middle of Darkwood (Wraithmarsh).

This place you are speaking of is to the East and slightly North of Bowerstone. Which, perhaps, could be near the Temple of Shadows...but that is quite a stretch. Rookridge doesn't appear to even exist on this new map.