• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

tjbyrum1

That Asshole Son-of-a-Bitch
Feb 3, 2010
712
23
90
32
California
WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

I always use to hear people say how bad and disappointing Fable II was. Well, it has its flaws, but it also added lots of things into the game, which I loved.

Fable II has many glitches, and I mean MANY. But every game has glitches, not every game is perfect.

Fable II is actually a good game.

1. The Dog is introduced, a very great asset to the game. He can find digging spots, hidden treasures, lead a few quests, follows, learn tricks, you can punish him or reward him, play with him, this dog actually had a huge impact on me during the game. I think the Dog was a great addition.
2. The size of the world in Fable II surpassed Fable I greatly. Bowerstone was bigger, new towns such as Oakfield, Bloodstone, and Westcliff. Fable II did a great job giving us freedom, they gave us a world, and I liked it.
3. Looking at the first game, Real Estate is a helluva lot better. You can now buy every house/building, change rents on it, redecorate, sell it, etc, and this time you automatically get money instead of having to collect bags of it.
4. Family life in Fable II grew a wee bit better, but barely. We got a wife in the first one. In II we have a wife, potential for a kid, easier way to have sex, etc etc. This was improved over Fable I.
5. Jobs were cool, but repetitive. But still, a small way to earn gold in large amounts, promotions, the jobs were a great addition as well.
6. Guns Guns Guns. I love Guns, and Fable II did a great job implementing them. There are so many in the game, and I liked them very much. Maybe underestimated, but I like them better.
7. Dyes in the game! Forget about having the Light, Normal, and Dark villager attire, now you have one set of it and it can any color you like!
8. Fable II added lots of weapons, interesting augments, and cool new things such as counters, the aiming thingy (forget its name).

Much more...
---


Now I know Fable II sucked in some ways. Some liked Bows, but were taken out, only have CROSSbows and guns now. Some liked more magic, but now its been simplified but renovated. Some liked the idea of having Flourish, Roll, etc already learned, now we HAVE to learn to do it. Some liked fishing (like me :) )).

So even though Fable II wasn't quite good and almost seemed to downgrade, it still added a good number of things Fable I either failed at or never had.

Let's hope Fable III has better stuff.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

Yeah it was cool.

But I see why they took it out. It just wouldn't have felt right with the guns coming into play.

I miss the Dark Plate Armor, and Light Plate Armor, I always used the Metal Helmet with them.

The armor looked good in the medieval setting, but Fable ain't no not about that no more.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

Oh yes, but I thought that why couldn't there be some shoulderguard? maybe not a whole armour.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

Well they had the Knothole Armor stuff, but that's not the same, and looks kinda crappy imo. I'm glad things change though. Lose something, gain another. Eventually new options introduced grow on you, and the ones taken out can be accepted as a fond memory. Looking at Fable III, they're simplifying and renovating the magic interfaces again, but we will also be able to cast two different types at once. Loss and gain, or perhaps for some simplified magic is a good thing. :lol:

The Hero is actually going to say stuff in Fable III, which is nice, because I've always felt like my Hero was kicked in the head by a horse or something. Only grunts and the occasional cheer or laugh.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

Lol, funny thing is I don't mind Will at all. Of course I overuse it and makes a lot of fights against huge groups of weak enemies (yes, I'm calling out the hollow men) short and pointless, but I'll take the benefits. I try to not dwell too much on what was removed and just appreciate what's there.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

I hate high fantasy gay ass ****.

**** it all, all you need is a gun and a sword and clothes, lots of side missions, good story, lots of jobs like fishing and hunting and lots of other crap, and you got a good ass Fable.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

I playes the first Fable and its disgusting, I cant understand how somone can love this game more than Fable II
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

dumsatafna;401848 said:
Yeah, personally I missed the plate armour :/

I agree with you completely! Based on Fable TLC's armour I was really hoping for some kick-assery armour in Fable 2 but, nope.. even the knothole island armour was rubbish. In my opinion. :(
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

Fable I had quite a few nice things in it.

I enjoyed the art and style of graphics it had over Fable II.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

tjbyrum1;401894 said:
I hate high fantasy gay ass ****.

**** it all, all you need is a gun and a sword and clothes, lots of side missions, good story, lots of jobs like fishing and hunting and lots of other crap, and you got a good ass Fable.
Well, like it or not the Fable games are fantasy games. They will always have Will in them, most people who play these games play it for the rpg aspect of it. If you don't like fantasy games and only want to shoot things, then go play Halo or Call Of Duty.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

I agree XZXZXZ70, but I just like Fable.

If they had a game similar to Fable, only LOT more realistic, then I'd like it more.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

The Will system of Fable II in my opinion was too slow and did not flow at all due to the charging time. After seeing some Fable III gameplay I'm pretty sure it has a similar charge-magic system like Fable II. It would be nicer if the three combat types flowed into each other like in Devil May Cry.

Speaking of Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 2 was utter crap but was a turning point and created the fundamentals to be expanded for large elements of Devil May Cry 3 and 4. Maybe people can think of Fable II similarly.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

dumsatafna;401848 said:
Yeah, personally I missed the plate armour :/

Yeah that really ****ed me off but then I got hal's armor via system glitch. Which mended some of my wounds.

Overall I fell Fable II had a crappy storyline that didn't even compare to the addictive storyline of Fable, and Fable TLC.

Other then that it was all right.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

i prefer the more serious tone of the first game and graphics but overall i would still rather play Fable 2 just because it has more to give
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

the main thing that i miss about fable I was the sense of purpose from having the hero's guild. i'm not really sure why, but i felt way more in control and that whatever i chose to do was my choice and through my own will (even though it wasn't, you have to go from point A to point B to continue the main storyline in both fable I and fable II) instead of just doing whatever theresa wanted. like i understand that your sister being killed was supposed to motivate you but the fact that theresa decided everything you would do just took away from the whole "hero" aspect.
 
Re: WAS Fable II Really That Bad?

It was a really fun game, but I think Lionhead missed on the story. They could have done so much more to tie it in to Fable 1, and it would have just made the entire experience that much better. That being said, they could be using Fable II to set up future installments, so we'll see.