How Would You Fix Fable

[mentalkitty789]

Just got finished playing Fable II & III and while I had a whole lot of fun with the Sims style RPG, I can't help but feel that the game play has some serious issues. Basically it's a sandbox box game with a totally different style of fapping about. The quest/combat part of the game is solid enough (although III needed some tougher baddies), so I would focus on making the fapping about a lot more interesting, such as:

1) Make pubs mini-game central. Drinking games, sing-a-longs, women/men of ill-repute, gambling, dice games, card games, etc. And don't make all of them the same damn mini-game with slightly different rules. II had the QTE, while III had Guitar Hero button pushing. Variety is the key. Drinking games should play differently from sing-alongs.

2) The Relationship quests are a good idea, but need to be expanded a *lot*. Fable III pretty much gave us to boring ass missions. There should be at least half a dozen missions and preferably more. And since they're low yield missions, I'd cut out the Return part of the quest. Deliver messages, find items, clear enemies from their home, collect gambling debts through intimidation, etc. And we should have to perform like a trained monkey to get to them either. Interacting with them should give us the option to perform a friendship mission. Different personality types would obviously want different things, so play up to those differences.

3) Add more personality types for the sexual part of the game. Chubby chasers, swingers, gold diggers, danger seekers, etc. Dates with characters shouldn't just be walking slowly with them to some secluded spot, it should be tied in with their personality. A bar fly would want you to go to the pubs with them. Danger seekers would want you to go beat up bad guys. The town nympho might want your help in arranging a gang bang. The swinger couple just wants a threesome.

4) While I like the simplified interface in the third game, I would like the option to pull up a larger menu. And I'd also like to see more than one animation per expression. Don't limit my fapping ability.

5) The money situation in the game is beyond ridiculous. For all practical purposes, you can spend half an hour playing at one of the job mini-games, buy some decent weapons, then never worry about money again (yes, I know III wants you to raise a ton money for the final battle, but you don't have to if you don't mind people making rude comments to you). Either tie the the money aspect in with the fapping about or de-emphasize it. Perhaps the ability to build mini-games.

6) Expand customization to the Albion population. If I pick a wife, I would like her to not look like eight other people in her village.

1) I agree with the mini games they should have had more variety. While I would like most of the mini games to be at the Pub the 'job' mini games should still stay at their respective places.

2) I think there should be two kinds of relationships in the game. a public relationship, as in how someone who basic doesn't know you would react (Like playing music in public would make people like you, but shouldn't make them fall in love). Then personal relationships, when you're trying to make friends with someone, intimidate them, or get in bed with then, ect. That way when a whole town hates me I don't have to run around doing all these quests just so people stop booing me in public when I'm a good guy. Also they need to work on how people react to you! I did the good thing almost all the time but I do one bad thing, open a fucking brothel and suddenly everyone hates me. EVERYONE.

3)Yes more personality would be nice, not just in the manner you describe though.

4)No these games don't need to get any simpler, they need to make these games more deep. Yes though I'm sure there would be a better set up for the controls.

5)I don't have any comment on this really. I will agree making money could be horribly easy after a time, and it could have been handled differently.

6)I agree with this. We need more variety or more unique characters that we can marry. I mean in Fable 2 I would have married the hero of power just because everyone else looked the bloody same.

Also they need to make it less you're either an angle or baby eater. Not that there is a problem with that, but I can't get into either role because they are too extreme.

 

[Mr. GameBrain]

1. Difficulty. Make it harder, or give us an option to make it harder.
2. A satisfying final boss. Its a good reward for all that effort!
3. Some more meat to the game! More quests, especially post-end ones, more variety in quests, bring back the spells (I like the weaving though, so keep that too), Develop the relationship system some more.
4. implement a proper job-quest system
If your a blacksmith, have a quest where you have to get a hilt for your mentor.
5. Professions allow you to gain extra perks.
Maybe when qualified as a blacksmith, you can craft your own weapons and armour.
A chef can cook his own food (some give extra boosts)
A estate agent gets special houses, and discounts on property.

 

[benderinTime]

Personally, I'd make it more difficult, but I wouldn't change anything else.
I can't really think of anything and I love all three of the Fable games.

 

[Fishyash]

I haven't exactly played fable 2 and 3, but I have seen little bits of people playing it. The magic on fable 2 and 3 just doesn't seem that interesting. Fable 1's magic system was great though. Generally the game was more challenging if you used magic, which I was fine by. Magic wasn't exactly strong in fable at the beginning until you had a large mana bar and a lot points in physical shield.

Also, I dunno about you guys, but without a self-imposed challenge in the game I would assume that the fable series is rather... easy. Even the first one as a full magic user in my first playthrough I only died a couple of times, early in the game.

 

[Netrigan]

4)No these games don't need to get any simpler, they need to make these games more deep. Yes though I'm sure there would be a better set up for the controls.

Actually sounds like you're partially agreeing with me. I don't mind the simplified interactions presented in III. I like that it lets you completely lock in on a person and interact only with them.

But I want full access to my expressions. If I feel like farting in someone's face, I should have to go through three interactions before I get the fart option. Giving me a default good, bad, & playful option is fine and dandy. I would like a merging of the two systems. Give me the glossy simplistic style on the surface, but leave the option open.

Like during conversations you could use RB to propose marriage or hire prostitutes... okay, so why isn't there an LB option floating around that opens up a full expressions menu. Simple, but with a bit of hidden depth... or as deep as Fable gets

 

[mentalkitty789]

4)No these games don't need to get any simpler, they need to make these games more deep. Yes though I'm sure there would be a better set up for the controls.

Actually sounds like you're partially agreeing with me. I don't mind the simplified interactions presented in III. I like that it lets you completely lock in on a person and interact only with them.

But I want full access to my expressions. If I feel like farting in someone's face, I should have to go through three interactions before I get the fart option. Giving me a default good, bad, & playful option is fine and dandy. I would like a merging of the two systems. Give me the glossy simplistic style on the surface, but leave the option open.

Like during conversations you could use RB to propose marriage or hire prostitutes... okay, so why isn't there an LB option floating around that opens up a full expressions menu. Simple, but with a bit of hidden depth... or as deep as Fable gets

I like interacting with one person too, but it turns into a pain in the ass when you make ONE 'evil' decision as king and other than that are a pure angle who even managed to save some people. It is why I mention a 'public image' and a 'personal image'. I do agree they made interacting with people WAY too simple though. When I'm playing a perfectly straight man trying to make friends with another straight man I do NOT want to dance with them. XD
Fable does entertain I just think it needs to look at its past three games figure out what people liked and didn't (well what the majority liked) and then build on those. Also it annoys me that there is almost no rpg left in these games. >.>

 

[subtlefuge]

Peter Molyneux = George Lucas (by no means comparing Fable to Star Wars)

Peter is both the best and worst thing about the series. Allow him to come up with ideas, but keep him from screwing them up.

Fable always starts out so grand, but my interest fades pretty quickly. I'm still hoping for great things from whatever comes next though.

OT: Remove some of the fluff and ramp up the difficulty.

 

[Netrigan]

4)No these games don't need to get any simpler, they need to make these games more deep. Yes though I'm sure there would be a better set up for the controls.

Actually sounds like you're partially agreeing with me. I don't mind the simplified interactions presented in III. I like that it lets you completely lock in on a person and interact only with them.

But I want full access to my expressions. If I feel like farting in someone's face, I should have to go through three interactions before I get the fart option. Giving me a default good, bad, & playful option is fine and dandy. I would like a merging of the two systems. Give me the glossy simplistic style on the surface, but leave the option open.

Like during conversations you could use RB to propose marriage or hire prostitutes... okay, so why isn't there an LB option floating around that opens up a full expressions menu. Simple, but with a bit of hidden depth... or as deep as Fable gets

I like interacting with one person too, but it turns into a pain in the ass when you make ONE 'evil' decision as king and other than that are a pure angle who even managed to save some people. It is why I mention a 'public image' and a 'personal image'. I do agree they made interacting with people WAY too simple though. When I'm playing a perfectly straight man trying to make friends with another straight man I do NOT want to dance with them. XD
Fable does entertain I just think it needs to look at its past three games figure out what people liked and didn't (well what the majority liked) and then build on those. Also it annoys me that there is almost no rpg left in these games. >.>

I almost put in something about public acts. I enjoyed showing off for a crowd in the second one, although I didn't like how many people turned into love-sick puppy dogs and followed me around while I was trying to perform covert assassination missions. I tried being mean to them, then I just draw a bit crowd of people booing and hissing me.

Also agree about keeping the jobs where they are. I'd also like to see various mini-games spring up around the kingdom... like the Chicken Races in III. I found gambling to be mostly pointless in Fable, so I only did it once (and won), but I would love to see odd little competitions spring up. Like sack races or three-legged races. This is something where II style QTE could actually be really cool, since you'd have to try to string together enough perfect hits to win the race, but a screw-up doesn't necessarily take you out of the running. Carnival rides could be a lot of fun, since you could actually use them to show off to people on dates... like grabbing the golden ring on a Merry-Go-Round.

To me, Fable is like Grand Theft Auto but instead of committing unspeakable crimes against them, I can just have a laugh; and I would love to see the game really expand on that sort of content. Sure, I'm a committed bigamist in these games, but I want to actually be able to have a bit of fun with my spouse, instead of just listening to her nag about how I need to move her into a bigger house.

 

[Olrod]

How Would You Fix Fable

By not releasing it until AFTER the Beta testing stage.

If Deadlines > Testing, then Your game < Crap.

 

[DustyDrB]

I would have built off of the first game. Lionhead deconstructed from the first game. I haven't played 3, but 2 was and is my most disappointing gaming experience and most hated game ever. The socialization in the series has always been awful, but the gutting of the combat from 1 to 2 is unforgivable.

Fable 2 being awful had nothing to do with hype. It was terrible with or without.

 

[Above]

IMO,Fables almost perfect

Just

-Don't Make it so easy to be a billionaire,I mean once you've bought ONE building your on easy street (FIII)
-Do the expression wheel again,easier & better than interacting with one person at a time (FIII)
-I like the guns,But bows made the game even better,it's not right when your some badass assassin who runs round with a rifle :/ (FII/III)


Apart from those,I loved the fable series <3

 

[mentalkitty789]

I almost put in something about public acts. I enjoyed showing off for a crowd in the second one, although I didn't like how many people turned into love-sick puppy dogs and followed me around while I was trying to perform covert assassination missions. I tried being mean to them, then I just draw a bit crowd of people booing and hissing me.

Also agree about keeping the jobs where they are. I'd also like to see various mini-games spring up around the kingdom... like the Chicken Races in III. I found gambling to be mostly pointless in Fable, so I only did it once (and won), but I would love to see odd little competitions spring up. Like sack races or three-legged races. This is something where II style QTE could actually be really cool, since you'd have to try to string together enough perfect hits to win the race, but a screw-up doesn't necessarily take you out of the running. Carnival rides could be a lot of fun, since you could actually use them to show off to people on dates... like grabbing the golden ring on a Merry-Go-Round.

To me, Fable is like Grand Theft Auto but instead of committing unspeakable crimes against them, I can just have a laugh; and I would love to see the game really expand on that sort of content. Sure, I'm a committed bigamist in these games, but I want to actually be able to have a bit of fun with my spouse, instead of just listening to her nag about how I need to move her into a bigger house.

Mine spouse didn't nag me at all, then again she lived in the castle. XD I do think she would have complained after I shot her though, if it hadn't killed her. I do agree that crowds of people following me around was a pain in the ass, and would normally lead me to yelling "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE! I'M TRYING TO HAVE SEX!". Then I would go to sleep for six days and the people would still bloody be there!
I do think that emotes that address a crowd should stop after making them friendly. That and I feel people shouldn't follow you around in Fable in the first place unless you tell them to, or have an emote for that specific purpose.

 

[spartan231490]

Bring back more magic. There are less spells in 3 than there were in 2, and even less in that than there were in 1. 1 was the Best of them.

I more or less agree with this, but more so. I only played 2, but it had the least choice and character customization of any rpg I've ever played. You couldn't even cast spells until you were like level 3, even if you picked the "mage" class. the rogue, warriar and mage classes need much more diversity between them, and a good deal of customization in what you can do in each class. I think dragon age is a pretty good example of this, so is oblivion.

 

[Netrigan]

Bring back more magic. There are less spells in 3 than there were in 2, and even less in that than there were in 1. 1 was the Best of them.

I more or less agree with this, but more so. I only played 2, but it had the least choice and character customization of any rpg I've ever played. You couldn't even cast spells until you were like level 3, even if you picked the "mage" class. the rogue, warriar and mage classes need much more diversity between them, and a good deal of customization in what you can do in each class. I think dragon age is a pretty good example of this, so is oblivion.

I'm increasingly not calling it an RPG and calling it what it really is, a sandbox game with some RPG elements.

The super-hero sandbox games Infamous, Prototype, and Crackdown have very similar systems. You don't have stats, but you do have skills that you upgrade via XP points. And with sandbox games, the big draw is random activities you engage in between missions. There's not a whole lot of role playing here, since the world is so shallow. I personally think they should embrace that shallowness for all its worth, as deeper interactions would really be un-Fable-like and being able to impress people through farting is one of its defining characteristics these days.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Bring back more magic. There are less spells in 3 than there were in 2, and even less in that than there were in 1. 1 was the Best of them.

See? He knows the truth. A lot of magic was taken out because Lionhead decided that having a mana bar made the game too difficult and took it out. Causing all the magic that have to rely on it to go along with it. Like the mana shield and teleportation, and others that would of been to cheap to have without a mana bar like the hulk magic thing, Divine Fury & Infernal Wrath and the one that heals you.

I'm not really a fan of mana bars. I can see the rational for really powerful spells, but if I have a sword with unlimited hitting ability, a crossbow with unlimited arrows, why don't I have unlimited shock bolts? Seems the D-Pad could be used really effectively for more powerful spells. Shade them out when you don't have enough mana, while letting the player have unlimited mana on more combat oriented spells.

Of course, I usually sit out Fantasy RPGs because I'm not a huge fan of the setting. Fable II & III happen to be just far enough out of the fantasy Middle Ages to interest me, so I gave them a shot. This tendency means that my opinion on magic in video games should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

Why should you have a mana bar? Well so that the game will be some what challenging? I didn't bother getting 3 because the insane easiness was too much. I never died in my first and only playthrough (recently found out you COULDN'T die) and the lvl 4 slow down magic plus highest level fire area spell equals win. You spam this the whole game and you win. Add to that just like I said in the other post that they took out a lot of magic because theirs no mana bar.

In Fable:TLC I would walk into a group of enemies armorless with the physical shield (requires mana bar) with swords that circled me attacking any threat. Occasionally I would summon a companion to follow me and fight for me. You could be so much of a badass that you didn't have to attack. Not so in Fable 2....

 

[Canid117]

Bring back more magic. There are less spells in 3 than there were in 2, and even less in that than there were in 1. 1 was the Best of them.

What did they take out?

Two of the spells became potions (slow time and reanimate), which meant I actually used them, since shock was my default magic spell. I did enjoy the spell weaving with the gauntlets, although I ended up using shock & fire most of the game.

Over-all, I thought the combat mechanics were much better this time out, even if it is too damn easy.

It would be cool to see more magic gauntlets added to the mix though... and make it easier to swap them out without going to the Sanctuary to do it.

Battle charge, Multi strike, Enflame, Drain life, Physical shield, Summon, Beserk, Assassin rush, Heal life, Ghost sword, Multi arrow, Divine fury, Infernal wrath.

I never ever used any but the last two anyway so its probably for the best

 

[Netrigan]

Bring back more magic. There are less spells in 3 than there were in 2, and even less in that than there were in 1. 1 was the Best of them.

See? He knows the truth. A lot of magic was taken out because Lionhead decided that having a mana bar made the game too difficult and took it out. Causing all the magic that have to rely on it to go along with it. Like the mana shield and teleportation, and others that would of been to cheap to have without a mana bar like the hulk magic thing, Divine Fury & Infernal Wrath and the one that heals you.

I'm not really a fan of mana bars. I can see the rational for really powerful spells, but if I have a sword with unlimited hitting ability, a crossbow with unlimited arrows, why don't I have unlimited shock bolts? Seems the D-Pad could be used really effectively for more powerful spells. Shade them out when you don't have enough mana, while letting the player have unlimited mana on more combat oriented spells.

Of course, I usually sit out Fantasy RPGs because I'm not a huge fan of the setting. Fable II & III happen to be just far enough out of the fantasy Middle Ages to interest me, so I gave them a shot. This tendency means that my opinion on magic in video games should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

Why should you have a mana bar? Well so that the game will be some what challenging? I didn't bother getting 3 because the insane easiness was too much. I never died in my first and only playthrough (recently found out you COULDN'T die) and the lvl 4 slow down magic plus highest level fire area spell equals win. You spam this the whole game and you win. Add to that just like I said in the other post that they took out a lot of magic because theirs no mana bar.

In Fable:TLC I would walk into a group of enemies armorless with the physical shield (requires mana bar) with swords that circled me attacking any threat. Occasionally I would summon a companion to follow me and fight for me. You could be so much of a badass that you didn't have to attack. Not so in Fable 2....

Taking the Shock spell as an example. It's not a terribly powerful spell if you just spam the cast spell button. It's fairly balanced with the melee and ranged attacks. Using a mana bar for a power like that is pretty much punishing people who attempt to play as a magic user. You run into a lot of this in Star Wars games, where really basic Force powers are rationed out. It's not like Grip is a game breaker. If you're using it, you're wide open to other attacks, so I just find the limits a bit annoying and not in tune with the spirit of said powers in other mediums. Gandolf never seemed to have problem whacking bad guys with one spell after another.

Infamous used a pretty good system. Your most basic attack used no electricity, so you could spam the hell out of it, but the more powerful electrical attacks drained your power much quicker.

But this isn't exactly a game play mechanic that I have tons and tons of experience with. It pops up in various games I play and I'm usually annoyed by it, so I just end up using conventional weapons that don't seem to have those sorts of hardwired limitations. Sure, I'm limited to 50 rockets, but that's 50 frakkin' rockets I have going into a Cyberdemon battle. As long as I switch between weapons a fair bit, I seldom have ammo problems. But Force juice... always frakkin' out five seconds into the fight.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Fable fails because they clearly spent too much time implementing painfully shallow mini-games and real estate/relationship bits and not nearly enough time fine-tuning the actual exploration and combat aspects that are core to the genre. They had so many big picture ideas, but none of that matters when it's all huddled around a subpar hack-and-slash with wonky controls and pitiful play mechanics.

The first game was definitely the best. Since, they've done nothing but dumb down the "game" while expanding on the inane crap that surrounds it.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Bring back more magic. There are less spells in 3 than there were in 2, and even less in that than there were in 1. 1 was the Best of them.

See? He knows the truth. A lot of magic was taken out because Lionhead decided that having a mana bar made the game too difficult and took it out. Causing all the magic that have to rely on it to go along with it. Like the mana shield and teleportation, and others that would of been to cheap to have without a mana bar like the hulk magic thing, Divine Fury & Infernal Wrath and the one that heals you.

I'm not really a fan of mana bars. I can see the rational for really powerful spells, but if I have a sword with unlimited hitting ability, a crossbow with unlimited arrows, why don't I have unlimited shock bolts? Seems the D-Pad could be used really effectively for more powerful spells. Shade them out when you don't have enough mana, while letting the player have unlimited mana on more combat oriented spells.

Of course, I usually sit out Fantasy RPGs because I'm not a huge fan of the setting. Fable II & III happen to be just far enough out of the fantasy Middle Ages to interest me, so I gave them a shot. This tendency means that my opinion on magic in video games should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

Why should you have a mana bar? Well so that the game will be some what challenging? I didn't bother getting 3 because the insane easiness was too much. I never died in my first and only playthrough (recently found out you COULDN'T die) and the lvl 4 slow down magic plus highest level fire area spell equals win. You spam this the whole game and you win. Add to that just like I said in the other post that they took out a lot of magic because theirs no mana bar.

In Fable:TLC I would walk into a group of enemies armorless with the physical shield (requires mana bar) with swords that circled me attacking any threat. Occasionally I would summon a companion to follow me and fight for me. You could be so much of a badass that you didn't have to attack. Not so in Fable 2....

Taking the Shock spell as an example. It's not a terribly powerful spell if you just spam the cast spell button. It's fairly balanced with the melee and ranged attacks. Using a mana bar for a power like that is pretty much punishing people who attempt to play as a magic user. You run into a lot of this in Star Wars games, where really basic Force powers are rationed out. It's not like Grip is a game breaker. If you're using it, you're wide open to other attacks, so I just find the limits a bit annoying and not in tune with the spirit of said powers in other mediums. Gandolf never seemed to have problem whacking bad guys with one spell after another.

Infamous used a pretty good system. Your most basic attack used no electricity, so you could spam the hell out of it, but the more powerful electrical attacks drained your power much quicker.

But this isn't exactly a game play mechanic that I have tons and tons of experience with. It pops up in various games I play and I'm usually annoyed by it, so I just end up using conventional weapons that don't seem to have those sorts of hardwired limitations. Sure, I'm limited to 50 rockets, but that's 50 frakkin' rockets I have going into a Cyberdemon battle. As long as I switch between weapons a fair bit, I seldom have ammo problems. But Force juice... always frakkin' out five seconds into the fight.

No it balances the game. If you run back and charge your high level timespell you have about 15 seconds to charge your highest area fire spell. Rinse and Repeat. In Fable: TLC I was a magic user and I had no problem using my magic. For one magic potions were abundant and if you were a magic you'd most of your exp to increase your mana bar. Trust me if you played the game you'd see how seemlessly the mana bar worked out.