GameBanshee Forums

Very much agree - I think a better question for this thread would be 'did you like Fable'?

Because I got it for PC, and had my expectations properly set, I wasn't disappointed. But I find the replayability quite lacking - I played good & evil, which took ~30 hours total, and I can't get into it again ... a year later.

fable wrote:There's no single "best," because there is no objective way of measuring this. It's all based on personal experience, expectations, desires, etc. But in most respects, Fable seems to be lacking: very short, very linear, lots of fluff but little depth. A good RPG, for me, pulls you into the story, brings the characters to life, throws you genuine curves, has plenty of people who don't act like simpletons or 10-year-olds, and challenges you mentally.

I agree with the fact that there is no single "best" RPG. For me, it would be Fallout 2 followed closely by Fallout 1, BG2, Morrowind and few others...

And yes, I have played Fable a bit, but didn't like even that...

fable wrote:There's no single "best," because there is no objective way of measuring this. It's all based on personal experience, expectations, desires, etc. But in most respects, Fable seems to be lacking: very short, very linear, lots of fluff but little depth.

I also agree with this point as well. There is no such thing as 'the single best RPG of all time.' People have different opinions about games. It's fun to play, I agree but I also find that Fable is terribly lacking in terms of the length and the gameplay mechanics as well. Can't believe that Mr. Molyneux went overboard by saying that Fable is the 'greatest RPG of all time' during an interview by a game site. Hope he doesn't repeat this mistake in the near future.

Also worth mentioning are some of the broken promises that really disappointed many who bought Fable. I know of 2, so far. The first one is the acorn tree feature. You get the chance to plant an acorn seed and eventually it will grow into an acorn tree. Never implemented in the game. The second one is starting a family. Sure you can marry, but you can't have children. I actually never knew about this until I read many articles as to why most players were disappointed with Fable. I wouldn't be interested in those features even if they were implemented or not. To me, they're just pure aesthetics.

DesR85 wrote:<snip>
Also worth mentioning are some of the broken promises that really disappointed many who bought Fable. I know of 2, so far. The first one is the acorn tree feature. You get the chance to plant an acorn seed and eventually it will grow into an acorn tree. Never implemented in the game. The second one is starting a family. Sure you can marry, but you can't have children. I actually never knew about this until I read many articles as to why most players were disappointed with Fable. I wouldn't be interested in those features even if they were implemented or not. To me, they're just pure aesthetics.

Aren't thoese the "promised" features he has stated for Fable 2? - I never recall reading about them in regards of Fable 1?

Xandax wrote:Aren't thoese the "promised" features he has stated for Fable 2? - I never recall reading about them in regards of Fable 1?

I don't know about the family part, but the 'world aging with you' was *definitely* part of the hype.

Xandax wrote:Aren't thoese the "promised" features he has stated for Fable 2? - I never recall reading about them in regards of Fable 1?

Yes. They are but those 'promised' features were also mentioned by Peter Molyneux during Fable's development as well and but never implemented in the original Fable according to previous articles in Gamespot during Fable's development. They were overhyped by Mr. Molyneux at that time and he even went on to mention features like the acorn tree and the family feature that was non-existant in the game.

So now, these broken 'promises' will be implemented in Fable 2 though they're still being tested at the moment, according to an interview of Mr. Molyneux by Gamespot. Hope he doesn't repeat those mistakes he made during Fable's development.

txa1265 wrote: I don't know about the family part, but the 'world aging with you' was *definitely* part of the hype.

Didn't know about this feature. I was following the development of Fable through Gamespot ever since Fable was announced and I think I might have missed some of the articles.

fable looked good and rpg first timers would gel to it but really it only just rates a rpg title char development is basic to say the least linear gp but lets see if they can do something good with any sequals but as far as the best man how many rpgs hhas he played. balders gate wizadry m&m final fantasy never winter nights all out class fable

daddy mage wrote:fable looked good and rpg first timers would gel to it but really it only just rates a rpg title char development is basic to say the least linear gp but lets see if they can do something good with any sequals but as far as the best man how many rpgs hhas he played. balders gate wizadry m&m final fantasy never winter nights all out class fable

For someone who developed his first RPG, I'll say that it is a good effort by the guys at Lionhead Studios and Peter Molyneux himself. Mr. Molyneux have been developing god-games for a very long time, particularly Populous series and Black & White series. So, for him to venture into RPGs with Fable, it is a drastic change in direction for him. Yeah, the game may not be as good as Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate ot even Might & Magic but it is a good game, especially for beginners.

Well, as the saying goes, sequels will always have improvements over it's predecessor. Most of the time, that is.

daddy mage wrote:fable looked good and rpg first timers would gel to it but really it only just rates a rpg title char development is basic to say the least linear gp but lets see if they can do something good with any sequals but as far as the best man how many rpgs hhas he played. balders gate wizadry m&m final fantasy never winter nights all out class fable

Erm, while it is your opinion, final fantasy was more linear than fable. Fable you at least had an option of being good or evil, in final fantasy, you don't. At least the single player ones.

There is a great rotation in our favorites, they are changing as the time flows. It would be a troublesome thing to point out one single game, that would be a pinnace of its genre and time. Few years ago most of us would say Baldurs Gate, now most would be rooting for Morrowind or KOTOR. So this is a pointless discussion.

Kruszakus wrote:There is a great rotation in our favorites, they are changing as the time flows. It would be a troublesome thing to point out one single game, that would be a pinnace of its genre and time. Few years ago most of us would say Baldurs Gate, now most would be rooting for Morrowind or KOTOR. So this is a pointless discussion.

Actually, I disagree with this one.
If you ask this question here, there would generally be one common answer still, BG. Of course, those games like MW and KOTOR does have their supporting group as best RPG ever, I believe most would still claim BG as ultimately best RPG of all time.

For me Fallout 1&2 have been ultimately best RPGs of all time, since I played those first time till this day. And, I will believe that they will stay on the top longer.

Of course, there comes new games and such, but if you want to actually compare different games from different times, you would also have to think the time when they were published, and especially what kind of feelings did those games brought to you.

So, of course the favourite game may change, but it's not 100% sure it will change after every even decent game...

Fable is pretty much one of the worst RPGs ive´played. why ?.

Way to bloody short.
Access to diffrent gear was... appealing.
Too much flashy graphics, not enough "fun gameplay".
VERY linear.
boring, boring,boring... and boring.

A Good RPG requires more then just flashy graphics and hype. An RPG that
has a playtime more then 1 day and offers abit more "fun" is worth noticing.

Dreez wrote: A Good RPG requires more then just flashy graphics and hype. An RPG that
has a playtime more then 1 day and offers abit more "fun" is worth noticing.

I do agree that RPGs should be more than flashy graphics and stuff but is the length of the game really necessary for it to be good? I know that a game shouldn't be too short but it shouldn't be too long either. It should be in between. I do agree that it should be more than 12 hours (I'd much prefer between 15-40 hours) but not up till the point of 50-100+ hours.

In my opinion, if I want to play a good RPG, the length of one isn't what I look for in any RPG. A game that is short can still be good game. The same can be said for a long game as well. In my opinion. any game that is too long will eventually become dreary and frustrating to any player. This ever happened to me when I played a game that is way too long and I felt so frustrated until the point where I wished that the bloody game would end soon.

Fable: Good or Evil...An important question

I don't know if I can say it's the best game ever... in fact, I'd have to say that the best game ever was Video Pinball for my Atari 2600! (Still play that game today! flashy graphics? WHO NEEDS THEM!?!) And I'd have to say that there are better games out there, like God of War (tell me that game didn't make you hunger for more...) or the recent Prince of Persia titles (possibly the best platformers of all time).
With that said, I think some people in here are being WAY too harsh on Fable. Yes, it's short, and YES it's linear, but it's MORE than length & direction that make a game GOOD.
Some people have bashed it for its FLASHY GRAPHICS. Personally, I thought the graphics were OKAY, but not really FLASHY. They could/should have been WAY better.
Some people have bashed it for being too short. I recently played throught it again for about the 50th time, and it took me around 25-30 hours to fully play. (get married, do all the optional stuff, go in all the demon doors, stop to fish occasionally (caught a 1593g fish!!!) and just generally explore the game fully) In that 25-30 hours, I cannot think of a single moment where there was a major lull in gameplay, or a time that it wasn't just plain fun! I'll admit that having to play through the "tutorial" every time is tiresome (having to be a kid, then having to be an apprentice, none of which really affects the game itself), but it's incredibly fun! I think 25 hours is a fairly decent ammount of time for a game to last. (yes, I know it can be beaten in like 6 hours if your'e a speed freak, but that's just not much fun) I think on games like ANY final fantasy game, and if you play all the way through it, doing everything, and going everywhere, and then after you beat it, you try to start a new game, it's almost kinda boring...In Fable, the first time I played it, and beat it, I IMMEDIATELY started a new game, and played all the way through again, and then guess what? yep...new game... I still go back to my original game from time to time, and play it...just when I thought I was getting tired of it, out comes fablemod.com (toast now) with a WHOLE new slew of stuff (1.01), and then when I get thorough a few rounds of that, out comes TLC...man, I've been playing fable REGULARLY (playing other games, too, mind you) since LAUNCH DAY. I'd say that logs me at well over 500 hours of gameplay... aside from Video Pinball, I've never played ANY game that much... (well, maybe excitebike, but I'm not sure) So maybe it takes me 20 hours to play through it once, but I don't just look at how long it took me to beat, I look at how long it took me to beat PLUS how long it took me to beat again, and again, and again... There are very few games that have ever kept me playing time & time again... maybe 15 games EVER have I beaten more than once since.....well, since the days of Nintendo, when a good game took a couple hours. To keep me coming back time & time again, it's the best bang for my buck I think I've ever gotten. (aside from V.P.) I guess it's cost me about 1/10th of a cent per time I've played it...?
As for linear, almost any game out there is linear in some way... basically, the goal to the game is to defeat the bad guy (or good guy) so you can save/rule the world... isn't that what Fable is all about? so in Morrowind, you can stop any time you like, and become the grand poobah of a guild, or own a shop... in Fable, I can stop any time I like, and rack up 5-600 balverines on my monsters killed list, and be the ultra-pimp-of-balverining! Non-linear gameplay would mean: Okay, you're an elf/goblin, and you live in Doodletown in the mystical world of Hummingston. You don't really have any direction in life, and nothing exciting has ever happened, but maybe something WILL happen at some point, although we doubt you'll ever check it out, so here ya go! Here's $500, and a dagger. Beat the game! "but, um, what's the point of the game?" "What do you mean? You wanted open-ended, non-linear! The point is to do what you want when you want, where you want!" "OH! OKAY!.........but what can I do?" "Umm... anything...?" "What's my purpose?" "Ah, but that would be giving you an ultimate goal, and this is NON linear! No no no, young grasshopper... you HAVE no purpose, because if you accomplish it, you've beaten the game..."
I don't think that sounds all that fun...

Anyway, sorry for the novel...
Is it the best game ever? no...but I'd put it as ONE of the best...

Okay, you're an elf/goblin, and you live in Doodletown in the mystical world of Hummingston. You don't really have any direction in life, and nothing exciting has ever happened, but maybe something WILL happen at some point, although we doubt you'll ever check it out, so here ya go! Here's $500, and a dagger. Beat the game! "but, um, what's the point of the game?" "What do you mean? You wanted open-ended, non-linear!

You're confusing humdrum with non-linearity, and non-linearity with variety.

First off, to your strawman argument, above. Of course, it doesn't apply to any game. If you've ever played (for example) Morrowind for any length of time, you know there's no role you can assume that is boring; for the nature of the game is to provide an experience that includes a mixture of combat, exploration, and growth. Or look at BG2: plenty of side-quests in chapter 2, and even an apparent branch in chapter 3 that make it seem non-linear. But all that yields is a number of prefigured quests, each very distinct, and all quite interesting.

My use of the word "apparent" above points to the latter part of your mistaken argument. Most games aren't truly non-linear, and no RPG I know of, is. Some action games, such as the Diablo series, are largely non-linear, but they aren't RPGs, and they are pretty boring, in my opinion. Within RPGs, instead, you're are offered a greater or lesser variety of areas to explore, monsters to kill, features to use: and if the areas in question are greater in number, then they're frequently tagged as non-linear, when they truly aren't. By contrast, Fable isn't so much a case of being linear, as offering next to no choices where you can go. It doesn't disguise it's linearity with strategic options that make you feel there is a whole land up for investigation.

So it's fair to say that Fable was an extremely linear game, with very few choices, a very short playing time, and nothing new to offer in the way of features. (That last part you inexplicably left out, in mentioning why many RPGers didn't like it.) Nearly all the qualities Peter Molyneux said he wanted to put into his game, in short, never showed up in it, at the end. He blamed the publishers, who tossed him out of the control seat. But he acknowledges that the game in no way resembled his vision; and I have to agree with him on this.

That's not to say you shouldn't enjoy it if you wish to do so, but by that same token, you might try allowing those of us who disagree, and find the game very dull, to do so, too.

Aeon wrote:<snip>
With that said, I think some people in here are being WAY too harsh on Fable. Yes, it's short, and YES it's linear, but it's MORE than length & direction that make a game GOOD.

Well, we agree so far. Fable is short, Fable is linear. A Good game is more then length and direction. No problem. Unfortunately in my mind - Fable has the none of the characteristics which make it a good game. It had fluff. It had elements which provided nothing to the game itself outside the fact that it had these elements - for instance marriage and "romance" which consisted of "flexing your arm" enough times, buy a ring and a house. Then you can "flex your arm" again and have a sexual relations with the spouse. But .... why. Did it have any effect on your character? The dialogs? The game? Other then Lady Grey I fail to see even why this would make it to the game.
Age and scars? Why have these if they do not affect how people view you? When they do not influence your combat abilities when you get "old". Oh so now my character is 70 years old and scarred beyound recognition, but yet everybody treats him as if he were 20 and "fresh out of school". All the same time while none of the NPCs have aged a day. Silly and pointless.

Why spend time on having such fluff in the game when it could have been spend so much better on the actual game?

Aeon wrote:<snip>
Some people have bashed it for its FLASHY GRAPHICS. Personally, I thought the graphics were OKAY, but not really FLASHY. They could/should have been WAY better.

Don't care much about graphics, except when I feel it might have been better to spend resources elsewhere in game development. And I feel it could have been better spend here ... or at least by working on that danged camera angle.

Aeon wrote:<snip>
Some people have bashed it for being too short. I recently played throught it again for about the 50th time, and it took me around 25-30 hours to fully play. (get married, do all the optional stuff, go in all the demon doors, stop to fish occasionally (caught a 1593g fish!!!) and just generally explore the game fully) In that 25-30 hours, I cannot think of a single moment where there was a major lull in gameplay, or a time that it wasn't just plain fun! I'll admit that having to play through the "tutorial" every time is tiresome (having to be a kid, then having to be an apprentice, none of which really affects the game itself), but it's incredibly fun!

Good for you. I've played it twice, with one restart. None of these exceeded 20 hours. And no - I do not "speed run" through games - did almost all quest (played good, so did not do evil quests) and opened most demondoors etc (and yes, got a fish of significantly more weight then 1500g).
But the liniarity of the game makes it hard to get lost, doesn't require you to contemplate which way to spec your character. There is little room for experimentation in Fable. Sure, you can go withouth magic, you can try to make a meele only etc, but when you need to place artificial constraints to make the game challenging and interesting (finding all silver keys, opening all demon doors) - then I think a game have failed.

Aeon wrote:<snip>
I think 25 hours is a fairly decent ammount of time for a game to last. (yes, I know it can be beaten in like 6 hours if your'e a speed freak, but that's just not much fun) I think on games like ANY final fantasy game, and if you play all the way through it, doing everything, and going everywhere, and then after you beat it, you try to start a new game, it's almost kinda boring...In Fable, the first time I played it, and beat it, I IMMEDIATELY started a new game, and played all the way through again, and then guess what? yep...new game... I still go back to my original game from time to time, and play it...just when I thought I was getting tired of it, out comes fablemod.com (toast now) with a WHOLE new slew of stuff (1.01), and then when I get thorough a few rounds of that, out comes TLC...man, I've been playing fable REGULARLY (playing other games, too, mind you) since LAUNCH DAY. I'd say that logs me at well over 500 hours of gameplay... aside from Video Pinball, I've never played ANY game that much... (well, maybe excitebike, but I'm not sure) So maybe it takes me 20 hours to play through it once, but I don't just look at how long it took me to beat, I look at how long it took me to beat PLUS how long it took me to beat again, and again, and again... There are very few games that have ever kept me playing time & time again... maybe 15 games EVER have I beaten more than once since.....well, since the days of Nintendo, when a good game took a couple hours. To keep me coming back time & time again, it's the best bang for my buck I think I've ever gotten. (aside from V.P.) I guess it's cost me about 1/10th of a cent per time I've played it...?

Well, it is good that you like it and you can play it over and over. But when a game is linear and lasts some 20 hours per play through - I must admit that I do get bored rather fast after completion. Why? Because there is nothing new. Chances you have miss something is smaller then with "longer" games.

Aeon wrote:<snip>
As for linear, almost any game out there is linear in some way... basically, the goal to the game is to defeat the bad guy (or good guy) so you can save/rule the world... isn't that what Fable is all about?
so in Morrowind, you can stop any time you like, and become the grand poobah of a guild, or own a shop... in Fable, I can stop any time I like, and rack up 5-600 balverines on my monsters killed list, and be the ultra-pimp-of-balverining! Non-linear gameplay would mean: Okay, you're an elf/goblin, and you live in Doodletown in the mystical world of Hummingston. You don't really have any direction in life, and nothing exciting has ever happened, but maybe something WILL happen at some point, although we doubt you'll ever check it out, so here ya go! Here's $500, and a dagger. Beat the game! "but, um, what's the point of the game?" "What do you mean? You wanted open-ended, non-linear! The point is to do what you want when you want, where you want!" "OH! OKAY!.........but what can I do?" "Umm... anything...?" "What's my purpose?" "Ah, but that would be giving you an ultimate goal, and this is NON linear! No no no, young grasshopper... you HAVE no purpose, because if you accomplish it, you've beaten the game..."
I don't think that sounds all that fun...

You seriously misrepresent what liniarity and opened ended gameplay is about, to the degree that I feel it rather needless to point out.
Non-linear gameplay is not:
Non-linear gameplay would mean: Okay, you're an elf/goblin, and you live in Doodletown in the mystical world of Hummingston. You don't really have any direction in life, and nothing exciting has ever happened, but maybe something WILL happen at some point, although we doubt you'll ever check it out, so here ya go! Here's $500, and a dagger. Beat the game!
and it seems almost trollishly stated.
Non-linear gameplay means you can still have a story, a purpose a goal, however your road to that goal, fulfillment of purpose and living of story is not defined by a almost First Person Shooter-type mapdesign.
Fable takes you by the hand and points you in the right direction on a road with no turns, detours and crossroads. That is linearity.
Games such as Morrowind points you in the general direction, and then it is up to you how you get there, if you take a detour and go left in a crossroad.
And no - because a game has story and you as a character within have purpose - does not, and I repeat not, mean the game is linear.
Heck - even linear games, such as fable expressed above, can mask their linearity by giving you some few choices and by making the game seem opened ended. Heck even SW:KOTOR - a game I berate often attempts to mask its very high degree of linearity by allowing you to decide which areas to visit, yet Fable does not. Sure you can walk to and fro various areas after you've unlocked them - but you do so without game purpose.

Also - I can't belive how you can even think of comparing performing events in Morrowind - such as becomming guildmaster - which is a part of, and affects, the gameworld, with taking a timeout from the liniarity of Fable and killing (grinding) a monster at fixed spawnpoints? The two are so far apart that I once again can only view this as almost trollish.

Aeon wrote:<snip>
Anyway, sorry for the novel...
Is it the best game ever? no...but I'd put it as ONE of the best...

Well, once again - it is good that you enjoy the game and that you can find so much "fun" in it - but your opinion is just that, an opinion. And when it seems to be only backed up by a misrepresenting of terms, a flawed comparison of said terms, and the fact that you have played it over and over, then I'm sorry - but you will not carry much weight in your arguments.

Fable is short, linear, fluffed - and in my book it holds nothing of the qualities which makes a good game.

I'm saying that i personlly don't think fabel that great. I dont know if i would ever call it good. I mean it's okay i guess.