Can we ever expect a game on par with the first?

#1sandman767Posted 4/5/2012 3:24:02 AM
I remember playing Fable the lost chapters right after I got my first xbox. It was, and still is my all time favorite game. But the sequels have been let downs. Nothing compares to having other heroes around that could put up a fight, or bosses that weren't just pathetic people. I mean seriously the series has progressively made the protagonist weaker, and much less epic.

Not to mention getting a connecting story arc. I want answers about the old kingdom and scythe and all that, not just vague hints and completely unrelated villians like the crawler.

I'm ranting blah blah blah, but does anyone feel this series can be redeemed?
---
Just who the hell do you think we are??
#2ScalytsPosted 4/5/2012 11:21:29 AM
I feel kind of the opposite. While I did enjoy Fable 1, I guess I listened to the pre-game hype way too much. So much was left out that by the time I played the game, it was a let-down. Still had fun, but wasn't the same game I was expecting.

Now Fable 2, I intentionally stopped myself from reading anything about the game pre-release - that way, I avoided getting mad about what was left out. Actually, a lot of what was hyped about the first game that was left out made an appearance in 2, so I was happy about that. Yes, it definitely was an 'easier' game than the first, but I felt the characters and story made up for it.

Fable 3 - pretty much same as above, although I admit the game was waaay too easy (didn't get knocked out once in two playthroughs).

I think everyone on this board will agree that they feel let down about where the series is going with the kinect only feature.
---
Know that for all who betray justice, I am their fate. And fate carries an executioner's axe. --Planescape: Torment
#3sandman767(Topic Creator)Posted 4/5/2012 8:21:50 PM
I know what you mean about the let downs. I remember when it was still project ego, and you could literally do anything. Fable one was a far cry from what was offered in project ego. But it still had the fun and nostalgia. I loved having other powerful heroes that I felt were my rivals. I hated that they destroyed the guild.
---
Just who the hell do you think we are??
#4omega_dogPosted 4/6/2012 5:35:46 AM
3 could've been good if they didnt make it so easy, add more magic, and made the last fight more interesting the thing is all 3 had the potential to be truly great but ultimately fell into being mediocre. but kinect is the worse idea I wish they didnt force it on the consumer they should have made it optional
---
Currently waiting for Rune Factory 4
Currently playing The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
#5joshnabours1Posted 4/8/2012 11:30:05 AM
Nothing can replace fable 1 peter molyneux probably put his whole being into that game usually when that happens you can never make one better again.... Maybe this fable journey will turn the table, though it's sad that peter molyneux had left even if he didnt live up to his promises. I say give this game a chance and see what happens, even though it's just for kinect, I believe it's a good gamble for both fable and kinect.
#6OverworkedPosted 4/8/2012 12:02:39 PM
*looks at Fable Heroes*

Doubtful. It appears that Lionhead have entered quite comfortably into Rare territory, which means their glory days are long gone.
---
Destruction is red, control is blue, synthesis is green, this hurts you.
#7naboursja1Posted 4/8/2012 2:40:58 PM
hey with peter gone they may do right... and does anyone know how to get rid of an account mine just got hacked and its fused with my xbox account
#8meralonnePosted 4/9/2012 8:36:08 AM
At the risk of getting flamed for disagreeing with the rest of the participants in this topic, I feel that Fable 2 was superior to Fable: TLC. Fable 3 was a huge step backwards, unfortunately.
---
"Sigs are for dorks."-- my wife
#9sandman767(Topic Creator)Posted 4/10/2012 2:31:47 AM
meralonne posted...
At the risk of getting flamed for disagreeing with the rest of the participants in this topic, I feel that Fable 2 was superior to Fable: TLC. Fable 3 was a huge step backwards, unfortunately.

The additions to Fable II were outstanding. But the fact that they took away other heroes, gave no powerful enemy to fight, and took a completely different path with the story leaving the old plotline behind simply made it a let down.
---
Just who the hell do you think we are??
#10meralonnePosted 4/10/2012 8:25:33 AM
I'd certainly agree with you on the "took out Heroes" part. Even though you didn't interact very much with most of the Heroes Guild, it was always implied that there were more Heroes than just the ones you dealt with. It probably would've also helped if you'd interacted with Reaver for more than the endgame. The lack of Heroes was probably the biggest complaint I had with Fable 2.

I'd also agree that boss fights were somewhat disappointing in Fable 2. However, I can't count that as a negative specifically to F2 when the fact of the matter is that LH has yet to provide a powerful enemy to fight in any Fable game. Both JoB fights were a joke that lasted roughly 1 minute each, Twinblade was a gimmick, Maze and the Crawler were both telegraphed (and easy), Thunder...wasn't, Whisper...was, Saker and Briar Rose needed help...a lot of it. When you get right down to it, the most difficult boss I've seen in any Fable game was the Commandant in Fable 2, and even that fight was only more difficult than usual because you were forced to use gimped gear in the battle.

As far as the story was concerned? Well, I understand that many players wanted a direct sequel with all the familiar sights and sounds. I was surprised myself when they announced what they were doing. It certainly would've been nice if there had been more overt references to the first game (though there were many). But I felt that the shift away from the tried-and-true-yet-overplayed-and-cliche "medieval times" setting was a good thing. Perhaps LH would've been better served putting all the stuff they stuck in that "Tales of Albion" site into the game itself.
---
"Sigs are for dorks."-- my wife