GameBanshee Forums

I personally would like to see more towns and villages, does anyone else feel the same way?

Logically, there has to be more towns, or at least the existing ones made bigger, because a civalazation of peole, no matter the circomstances, will grow larger, and a lager population means more people, and more poeple mean more aor bigger cities. personally I think that there should be more towns/cities.

Yeah, I very much agree. With bigger towns would mean more things to do.

Yeah there has to be more towns and villages, they should keep the old map from befor just make it a lot lot bigger with more scenery.

Mephisto

I think they should populate darkwood

As in with Humans in tents? Or like a Balverine Shelter?

I also think a Zoo would be cool, all differnt monsters across the land are there, and you must pay to go in and kill monstors

ni.ck wrote:As in with Humans in tents? Or like a Balverine Shelter?

I also think a Zoo would be cool, all differnt monsters across the land are there, and you must pay to go in and kill monstors

I havent been to a zoo in the while but im pretty sure that you dont go in them to kill things however a zoo quest could be good-like capturing the animals in traps etc. or there could be another arena to kill the things

and also another land is needed if the game is going to be any longer as it was tiny in the first game really compared to simalar RPG's like oblivion

ashes2233 wrote:I havent been to a zoo in the while but im pretty sure that you dont go in them to kill things however a zoo quest could be good-like capturing the animals in traps etc. or there could be another arena to kill the things

and also another land is needed if the game is going to be any longer as it was tiny in the first game really compared to simalar RPG's like oblivion

You could always take out you gun and kill them...and then the guards that would come to stop the mad man(a.k.a. you)

They had better not make this like Oblivion!!!! Oblivion sucks!

ashes2233 wrote:I havent been to a zoo in the while but im pretty sure that you dont go in them to kill things however a zoo quest could be good-like capturing the animals in traps etc. or there could be another arena to kill the things

and also another land is needed if the game is going to be any longer as it was tiny in the first game really compared to simalar RPG's like oblivion

I'd like it if there are various different islands/continents you can travel to during quests, possibly by boat. Each one could have an arena that offers different challenges - one could be just beasts that you fight, one could be like a gladiator arena where you fight nobody but other heroes, and so on.

I also think that they should make it so its free roaming (i.e. you can go anywhere in the land rather than just set paths). If they did this, then the land would not necessarily have to be bigger as you'd be able to explore more of it (like in games such as Morrowind where you can pretty much go wherever you please).

The linear path is made to correlate monster toughness with your char's level.
Easier buggers in the begining of the path, nastier in the end.
It is given. Elder Scrolls have a different approach: as you level-up you encounter tougher opponents everywhere. I think both approaches are valid.

I would like to see a bigger realm, with political intrigue that you can't guess within first ten minutes. Maybe two kingdoms that are on the brink of a war. It is cool to travel between two different countries to uncover a plot within plot within plot while shady and prominent characters on both sides try do backstab, poison and seduce you.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:The linear path is made to correlate monster toughness with your char's level.
Easier buggers in the begining of the path, nastier in the end.
It is given. Elder Scrolls have a different approach: as you level-up you encounter tougher opponents everywhere. I think both approaches are valid.

My biggest complaint with Fable is that this was not the case. Like the Gothic games, the ending monsters/enemies were ridiculously underpowered. By being able to roam freely, you have the option to do what you like, but quests can guide you to places suited for your level but do not stop you from tackling harder places if you so choose (like they do in the Baldur's Gate games)

ni.ck wrote:As in with Humans in tents? Or like a Balverine Shelter?

I also think a Zoo would be cool, all differnt monsters across the land are there, and you must pay to go in and kill monstors

i think a zoo would be cool,you pay to go in,watch the monsters,and read about their history,strenghs and weaknesses.

and yeah if you get bored reading you can jump into the cage and kill them all!

and the idea of a quest that you catch monsters with traps(or however)is a good one
after you catch them you go to the owner and get your reward...

and after your done talking to the owner you can kill him and take the zoo as your own!!!
muhahaha!!!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

mr_sir wrote:My biggest complaint with Fable is that this was not the case. Like the Gothic games, the ending monsters/enemies were ridiculously underpowered. By being able to roam freely, you have the option to do what you like, but quests can guide you to places suited for your level but do not stop you from tackling harder places if you so choose (like they do in the Baldur's Gate games)

This is an example of a poor implementation so to speak, not the principle itself. Anyway, a game with constantly respawning monsters gives a good opportunity to power-up so the final task might be perceived relatively easy. Take Diablo, Sacred, Titan Quest, Dungeon Siege etc. How much challenge did you get in the end? In Gothic Gold the final task is not that easy now by the way. And Fable finale is not so pathetic either in my humble opinion. It is just not very interesting.

Honestly, I don't recall a game where I could not beat a boss. And you know what? We are supposed to win. And for me the uber-difficult boss is not a hallmark of a good RPG/adventure game. I have different criteria but it is just me.

As to personal preference, I agree, free-roaming style versus arcade is more appealing to me. The same way as BG-type adventure is more appealing than "action-adventure" clone. But it is good to have variety.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: Honestly, I don't recall a game where I could not beat a boss. And you know what? We are supposed to win. And for me the uber-difficult boss is not a hallmark of a good RPG/adventure game. I have different criteria but it is just me.

I don't like games with near impossible bosses to kill, but I do prefer it if they take more than 1 minute to kill. With the respawning, they can include that in a free-roaming world, only there is more scope for a bit of variety in a free roaming world instead of just endless bandits and hobbes as there will be a wider area to be inhabited by weird and wonderful monsters to fight.

I agree, variety of all kinds makes life interesting.
I played Fable relatively long time ago but I am pretty sure it took me more than one minute to win in the end. Later I attempted to replay but it was rather boring... If they would make a sequel I will play it.

And let it be a beautiful free-roaming world with lots of chicken to kick!!!

Lady Dragonfly wrote: Honestly, I don't recall a game where I could not beat a boss. And you know what? We are supposed to win. And for me the uber-difficult boss is not a hallmark of a good RPG/adventure game. I have different criteria but it is just me.

Agreed. Most games would always want a player to kill a boss, no matter how difficult or easy it is. However, while I do like bosses where they can be killed by ordinary attack, I honestly would like some bosses to be killed by a certain method rather than just any ordinary attack. I'll elaborate more on this: Let's say there is this boss which is immune to all forms of ordinary attacks. But your task is to still kill it nonetheless. You have to lure it into a narrow passage until you reach a chamber where a large lighter is. Head into a room, and when the boss reach that room with the huge lighter, lock the doors, flip the switch and watch the boss burn to death.

I honestly don't know if this idea is good but I just want to bring up a boss fight that breaks the tedium of merely hack-and-slash the bosses to death like what you see in Fable: The Lost Chapters.

Lady Dragonfly wrote: And let it be a beautiful free-roaming world with lots of chicken to kick!!!

Good one. :laugh: I would also like to see different animals in places like a wide open jungle.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I agree, variety of all kinds makes life interesting.
I played Fable relatively long time ago but I am pretty sure it took me more than one minute to win in the end. Later I attempted to replay but it was rather boring... If they would make a sequel I will play it.

And let it be a beautiful free-roaming world with lots of chicken to kick!!!

Thinking about it, I'd be happy with a non free-roaming world as long as there is a bit more variety. Was it just me or did anyone else get fed up of always having to fight bandits in Fable? If they make the maps a bit larger then they wouldn't necessarily have to have a free roaming world I guess.

I totally agree about the boss-fight. I like the term confrontation better; it implies more than a direct assault when all you have to do is hack-n-slash with abandon, gulp a healing potion, hack-n-slash, gulp... hack... gulp... hack... for "more-than-a-minute" until you adversary bites the dust with a final infernal cry, amidst lightning, flames, billowing smoke and other special effects.
There should be optional solutions. Like in Bard's Tale for instance.
And I can imagine a situation when your final boss might not be a dragon or a demon or a lich or just a mean guy with a huge axe. I would like to see more intelligent enemies I have to outwit.

mr_sir wrote:only there is more scope for a bit of variety in a free roaming world instead of just endless bandits and hobbes as there will be a wider area to be inhabited by weird and wonderful monsters to fight.

I agree on this to, what i would also like is that u could learn on the things new species do and live, like new spells new armor, More kinds of food instead of fish and applepie.
Like u have people roaming trhoug albions and bandits, so will u have the orcs that are inhabited Live in city's u can pay a visit and the evil orcs that attack( just an exsample ), the new land should feature this.
also what i would like are bigger mapsections so u dont have to load each section over and over again. Like putting whole darkwood in one sections and all of greatwood In one to to.
anyway i would like to have the parts of albion featured in Fable: The Lost Chapters worked out in it to, so u can still go to oakvale in fable two.
I would like to have some more side quests to, Like 500 quests more I dont like finishing a game in 5 houres.

Not only would I like to see bandits and other monsters roaming through the wilderness of Albion but I would also like to see armed guards patrolling the land as well, especially the routes taken by traders. I mean, traders going around unescorted looks kind of weird to me and you know that most traders have very little to no weapons training at all, making them easy pickings for wandering bandits. If armed guards are around, at least it would add a sense of logic and it would be fun to see both guards and bandits fight among each other whenever the bandits attack the traders.