Creating a follow-up to any piece of work is always difficult. If the original was generally regarded as having been pretty darn good already, then producing a worthy successor will always present a degree of challenge. However, if the initial instalment in a franchise was chastised for a number of flaws, it should be expected that any additional entries into the series would seek to resolve these negative points whilst building on the positives.
The original Fable could never be described as perfect, and it was abandoned in a sea of pre-release hyperbole in which it could never hope to swim. Many unique features were promised, and so before its release the gaming community had been expertly whipped into a frenzy over the exciting new gaming experience that it would bring. Alas, once gamers hands actually fell upon Fable it became apparent that it was nothing more than a pretty but shallow action game with slight rpg undertones. The flaws with the game were numerous, yet despite this the charm of the world shone through, and it became impossible to entirely hate it.
And so the sequel; a new game set 500 or so years after the original and built from the ground up to address all the flaws in the first game, and add a slew of enticing new features. Or, more accurately, not. It seems that despite being in development for several years, it was decided to overlook improving the quality of certain aspects of gameplay, and focus all attention on a dog. And then drown the unfortunate canine in, you've guessed it, a sea of hyperbole.
Almost all of the pre-release videos focussed on the modelling of your four-legged companion; whether detailing the realism of his movements or the perceived emotional attachment which would result. As it turns out, he does instil emotion in the player. Largely of the "get out of my way, you glitchy annoying bastard" variety. Beyond trapping the player character in place for several seconds, the dog's role is little more than that of a furry metal detector.
Other than this, very little has changed in the world of Albion since Fable 1. A meagre selection of npc character models still annoy your hero with an equally meagre number of regional British voices. These barks assault the player from all sides and comment unnecessarily on how good or evil his or her latest actions have been. But the people of Albion are a fickle lot, and endearing the player character to them involves no more than striking a heroic pose or tactically breaking wind. On the morality scale, shifting alignment from pure good to pure evil and back is a simple case of donating money to the church, or going on a killing spree.
There is, of course, another measure of worth in the purity/corruption bar, but getting this rating to swing wildly from one extreme to the other is a simple case of adjusting the rent prices of the players real estate empire. Disappointingly, as in the previous game, alignment seems to have almost no effect on anything, and the ridiculous ease of changing alignment renders the whole concept almost meaningless. There are multiple endings in the game, but rather than the player receiving the ending most appropriate to their in-game actions, it's simply a case of choosing the desired conclusion from a list. Most jarringly, none of the endings have any great effect on the world around the player, and the choice of a truly evil ending (for example, global genocide) is conspicuously absent.
Alignment issues aside, the mainstay of any action game is the player combat, and here again Fable 2 is less than satisfactory. Melee combat is often little more than button mashing, and magic spells can only be cast from a choice of one spell in each of five levels. Curiously any concept of magic energy such as mana has been removed, with the player forced to charge up more powerful spells over time to stop them from spamming the enemy with level 5 fireballs. This is unusual and unfamiliar, but it would be unfair to say that it is a complete failure. Ranged combat is the deepest of the disciplines, although at lower levels it is still a simple matter of repeatedly hitting the Y button when within 50 metres of an enemy.
So, with all the negative qualities listed above, it becomes even more curious that once again it's impossible to actively hate Fable 2. Yes, the story is horribly cliched, the combat is as shallow as a teaspoon and the good/evil scale is as pointless as ever. Yes, it's stupidly easy to amass ludicrous amounts of money with a few minutes of working, the final boss is the most jaw-dropping anti-climax in history and the dog is a waste of pixels. But there is something endearing about Fable 2, and so the emotion that it evokes is not anger or hatred, but disappointment. An opportunity to create a truly unique adventure was once again wasted, and instead we were left with a pretty but shallow action game with slight rpg undertones. Which sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?
In all, the story is short enough to complete in a weekend and the linearity of the main story is not likely to make a second play desirable. Recommendation: Rent it.
By the way, if Natasha Beddingfield is reading this, it's pronounced "hy-per-bo-lee", not "hyper-bowl", you dopey cow.
The original Fable could never be described as perfect, and it was abandoned in a sea of pre-release hyperbole in which it could never hope to swim. Many unique features were promised, and so before its release the gaming community had been expertly whipped into a frenzy over the exciting new gaming experience that it would bring. Alas, once gamers hands actually fell upon Fable it became apparent that it was nothing more than a pretty but shallow action game with slight rpg undertones. The flaws with the game were numerous, yet despite this the charm of the world shone through, and it became impossible to entirely hate it.
And so the sequel; a new game set 500 or so years after the original and built from the ground up to address all the flaws in the first game, and add a slew of enticing new features. Or, more accurately, not. It seems that despite being in development for several years, it was decided to overlook improving the quality of certain aspects of gameplay, and focus all attention on a dog. And then drown the unfortunate canine in, you've guessed it, a sea of hyperbole.
Almost all of the pre-release videos focussed on the modelling of your four-legged companion; whether detailing the realism of his movements or the perceived emotional attachment which would result. As it turns out, he does instil emotion in the player. Largely of the "get out of my way, you glitchy annoying bastard" variety. Beyond trapping the player character in place for several seconds, the dog's role is little more than that of a furry metal detector.
Other than this, very little has changed in the world of Albion since Fable 1. A meagre selection of npc character models still annoy your hero with an equally meagre number of regional British voices. These barks assault the player from all sides and comment unnecessarily on how good or evil his or her latest actions have been. But the people of Albion are a fickle lot, and endearing the player character to them involves no more than striking a heroic pose or tactically breaking wind. On the morality scale, shifting alignment from pure good to pure evil and back is a simple case of donating money to the church, or going on a killing spree.
There is, of course, another measure of worth in the purity/corruption bar, but getting this rating to swing wildly from one extreme to the other is a simple case of adjusting the rent prices of the players real estate empire. Disappointingly, as in the previous game, alignment seems to have almost no effect on anything, and the ridiculous ease of changing alignment renders the whole concept almost meaningless. There are multiple endings in the game, but rather than the player receiving the ending most appropriate to their in-game actions, it's simply a case of choosing the desired conclusion from a list. Most jarringly, none of the endings have any great effect on the world around the player, and the choice of a truly evil ending (for example, global genocide) is conspicuously absent.
Alignment issues aside, the mainstay of any action game is the player combat, and here again Fable 2 is less than satisfactory. Melee combat is often little more than button mashing, and magic spells can only be cast from a choice of one spell in each of five levels. Curiously any concept of magic energy such as mana has been removed, with the player forced to charge up more powerful spells over time to stop them from spamming the enemy with level 5 fireballs. This is unusual and unfamiliar, but it would be unfair to say that it is a complete failure. Ranged combat is the deepest of the disciplines, although at lower levels it is still a simple matter of repeatedly hitting the Y button when within 50 metres of an enemy.
So, with all the negative qualities listed above, it becomes even more curious that once again it's impossible to actively hate Fable 2. Yes, the story is horribly cliched, the combat is as shallow as a teaspoon and the good/evil scale is as pointless as ever. Yes, it's stupidly easy to amass ludicrous amounts of money with a few minutes of working, the final boss is the most jaw-dropping anti-climax in history and the dog is a waste of pixels. But there is something endearing about Fable 2, and so the emotion that it evokes is not anger or hatred, but disappointment. An opportunity to create a truly unique adventure was once again wasted, and instead we were left with a pretty but shallow action game with slight rpg undertones. Which sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?
In all, the story is short enough to complete in a weekend and the linearity of the main story is not likely to make a second play desirable. Recommendation: Rent it.
By the way, if Natasha Beddingfield is reading this, it's pronounced "hy-per-bo-lee", not "hyper-bowl", you dopey cow.
