Sup everyone, hope you’re enjoying your week thus far and chiming in with your thoughts on this week’s Member BattleCry topic: The Most Disappointing Games of All-Time. Now, as you may have heard me say on previous editions of our EpicBattleCry video podcast, I’ve come to develop a love/hate relationship with the Fable series…Peter Molyneux does an AWESOME job of making the game SOUND great, but once I’ve picked up the sticks, it’s felt like just a little something was missing. Well, EBA Axe Head fatninja expresses his own disappointment with this rather popular franchise in today’s Member BattleCry, so hit the jump to find out why the Fable series is considered by some to be more of a myth than a legend.
fatninja says:
I know this was touched on before, but my Battlecry goes to the Fable series as a whole.
The first one, I believe I was told would revolutionize RPGs and there were there hard life decisions that would affect my world and appearance. True, Fable delivered some of what it advertised, but it’s still just some. Customizing your character just felt really limited. Not enough armor choices. You could have a wife but no kids. If you were good, you got a sissy halo and butterflies. The world was limited to small sections that had load screens. It felt shallow.
The next one, I thought they were going to fix everything. It looked better. Had a better story. The economy system was interesting. But there were no good legendary weapons. You could buy better stuff. You could have kids now but they never age and all you can do is lead them around and give them gifts. The dog was supposed to be this empathetic, intelligent creature. I lost him like three times. He got stuck somewhere, and the only real reason I liked him was he found treasure. The closet got bigger, but not enough for totally eliminating armor. There were less tattoos. It was buggy. The DLC was a joke. The list goes on.
The series always promises and delivers less than half of what they say. It always leave me with a bittersweet taste in my mouth. For games that base themselves on consequence and choices, I never feel that attached or like I’m making any kind of difference. They’re not terrible, but they always feel like they’re missing something. But like an abusive relationship, I’m comin’ back for Fable III. Hopefully this iteration lives up to the promise of the first.
END
So…there ya go…I’d like to quickly clarify my intro by stating that I truly did enjoy the first Fable and felt rather disappointed by the second for the reasons fatninja listed above. I too will hold out hope for Fable III, but I get the feeling that folks like me and fatninja are ready to give up if the game doesn’t do the concept of the franchise justice. So, what do YOU think? Any Fable fans in the house that feel the complete opposite? How many of you loved BOTH games? Let us know your thoughts on Lionhead’s Fable in the comments section below and as always, you can also bring up ANYTHING you’d like from the world of gaming over on this week’s topics starter post where you can SUBMIT A NEW TOPIC:
SUBMIT YOUR MEMBER BATTLECRY IN THE COMMENTS SECTION HERE.
Alright, that’s all for today, but stay tuned for more epic Member BattleCries throughout the week here on EpicBattleAxe.com!
Stay Brutal,
DK
Good cry, fatninja. Fable would probably be a close second to Invisible War on my list of disappointing games. I, too, read all the previews and followed Fable from the days when it was merely known as Project Ego.
The one ridiculously hyperbolic claim I’ll always remember from the previews was when Molyneux put forth the idea of randomly (key word there) going into a town as a young man, sacking the town, killing a child’s father, and wounding said child. Years later you could return to that random town where the random child, now a man, would show his scarred face and seek revenge in a completely unscripted event. That sure made it into the final product…
Back when Fable was announced, I was a junior in high school and wrote video game related articles for my school newspaper. I was so excited about the game, I wrote an article on it. I should’ve done that article on Morrowind, which came out sooner and did an infinitely better job of pulling off many of the gameplay elements that never made it into Fable.
Fable II didn’t do anything for me, either. It was just more of the same bait and switch Molyneux is famous for. The only thing that’s got me interested in Fable III is this system of creating weapons through use on different creatures and moral alignments. However, it could end up being just as shallow as any other gameplay element in the Fable series.
Though I played both and thought they were a lot of fun, I think the most disappointing part of the Fable games was that there was so much talk about being able to connect with characters and making you feel for the people you meet. (In the second game with the dog thing in particular) However, I never once felt anything for any of the characters in the games. Truthfully, I can’t even remember any NPC’s name even while playing the game. For a game that was supposed to be about immersing the player into the world, it was very forgettable and all the interactions felt very … cheap. I’m not sure I see this changing in the third game and though Fable 2 was a first day buy for me, I’m much more hesitant to dive into this next one. Just my personal take on it.
What Molyneux and crew fail to realize is they can’t expect the player to form emotional connections with random NPCs who have no backstories or personalities.
You can get married, but why would you want to? All potential spouses in Fable are just random muppets who have no defined personalities. You should be able to get to know the “person.” Give her a troubled past or give her overbearing parents who think she’s insane for marrying a schlub like you. Hell, give us a reason to care about these characters instead of just telling us we should care for them.
The dog and children from the second game were really weak attempts at trying to cull emotion. The dog did nothing but find treasure for you. A useful gameplay mechanic, to be sure, but this makes me treat him more like a simple tool than a dear companion.
Kids? All they did was look cute and call you daddy. That may provoke an “Awwww, look at that,” but that’s a superficial emotion, at best.
If Lionhead wants some direction in this aspect, they need look no further than Bioware, a company that’s been pulling this stuff off well for years. Near the end of ME2, I was nervous about starting the suicide mission because I knew there was a chance some of my crew members wouldn’t make it back. They weren’t merely cannon fodder or tools I used to complete the game; I actually cared about them. Now that’s character development.
Indeed it was a good cry.
I also felt that the combat was a big letdown in fable 2, with the introduction of guns I thought it would make it a more fast paced experience. Sadly I just missed the button bashing melee of the first game.
Fatninja you have my respect for sticking with Lionhead even through to Fable III, I jumped off that boat half way through number II.
I’m glad I’m not alone in this, I have long pondered why people liked those games. To be honest, I havn’t bought or played either I or II myself, but I watched a friend play through the first one, probably spent about 10 hours across his play of the game so I got a pretty good look. It was pretty interesting, but very basic in my opinion. I wasn’t into the gaming industry at the time, i was just a highschooler who liked playing them.
Then Fable II came out and this time I was very much into knowing the industry and frequented trailer sites, and listened to podcasts… Hm I wonder when Fable II came out, and if I was listening to EBA at that time… O well can’t remember.
In any case, I was well aware of the claims that Peter Molyneux was making about the quality of the game’s story, the values of the in-game choices you’d make, and about the loving companion the dog would make. I specifically remember watching a video specifically about the dog, showcasing how life-like it looked and how it behaved and reacted to you as real dog did. I was a bit skeptical of it all, but as the first wasn’t really my thing I didn’t buy it.
Unluckily for me, my roommates girlfriend bought it and played it morning noon and night for about 2 weeks. I wound up watching her play probably 10-15 hours of the game and I have to say I was wholeheartedly unimpressed.
RPG elements? Where, there was no armor upgrades, or even armor at all. All you could do was change your avatar and all the rest was invisible to the player. I would consider immersion a key component of good RPGs and characters who’s dialog or behavior is so incredibly unrealistic is a step entirely in the wrong direction. All the women were the same (kind of reminds me of the beggars from Assassins Creed)
Story-wise, I was fairly unimpressed with as well, the kind of black and white “choices” have been in games for ages now, that’s nothing new.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Spoiler * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * if you don’t want to know skip to the next paragraph* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The only real big twist in the game was when you had to pick between your dog dying or loosing you little sister(or wife, princess, or some other female character in the story). It was really only a choice of the lesser of two evils (assuming you cared for either character) that then sticks you with a loss.
So it had laughable (imo) RPG elements, a mediocre at best storyline, nearly zero attachment to characters of the plot- let alone the NPCs, and then an array of add things like how to make money (oh god, how often I watched her pour beers for money and hear the same damn 4 lines of dialog about how well or poor you’ve done). The dog didn’t empathize with you, or “react” it was just scripted to move around you in certain ways, all it really did was find treasure and make cute sounds. The girl playing was obviously enthralled, but the “real gamers” (yes, I’m using that phrase sarcastically) felt the dog was quite an empty character that kind of just got in the way.
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion had been out for some time, and I played that game for 120 hours. I think Fallout 3 was soon to be released, or just had been at the time of Fable II’s release. With all honesty, all I could think while watching was how boring the game was, and how every aspect of what Fable II tried to do, Oblivion surpassed it by leagues. Better story, more engaging world, better combat, characters you could actually care for, etc. I couldn’t understand why anybody would play Fable II when Elder Scrolls IV was also available… it just boggled my mind.
After watching so much of how dubbed-down Fable II was, what little interest I might have had in the Fable franchise, or in Peter Molyneux, is now totally absent. Bad games aren’t my thing, and his style isn’t either.
Oblivion and the Mass Effect series were basically what I was comparing my Fable 2 experience to when I was playing it and they both surpassed Fable in every way. At the end of ME2, I was literally holding my breath at the end of every fight anxiously wondering if my team made it out alive.
******* SPOILERS BTW so stop reading now ********
In Fable 2, when you had to choose between saving dogs, saving the people on the city that died, or whatever… it was a very artificial choice. It wasn’t even a choice. I think a huge portion of the people who played the game HAD to choose the option to revive the dog if they wanted to find treasures or finish quests after the ending. When the dog is 50% of the gameplay, I think you are no longer picking based on what you believe your character would do but more on that a large portion of the game would no longer be accessible unless you chose a certain way.
Some of those things you disliked were part of the development theory, like removing armor to add personality to the character. Instead of everyone using the same armor and looking the same. The same applies to weapons. but still, Peter and Lionhead focus too much on new ideas, and less on core mechanics that people like. That’s probibly because a million other games do them better, with no innovation. How many RPGs have great story, combat, ect? How many let you get married to 2 gay men, and an ugly whore… Fable.
I’ve only played Fable 2, but I didn’t think it was too bad of a game. Sure, there were bugs aplenty, but for me that was too be expected from such an ambitious title. I enjoyed making choices and killing whomever I pleased (I had an evil character). However, what really ruined the game for me after a while was the econimic system of the game. At first, I bought a few properties and jacked up the rent or prices to make quick cash, which I did. After a while I used my money to buy every building in sight and raise prices on the properties. It didn’t take long for this to fill up my “evil meter” and turn my character into a demon. I didn’t have a problem with this at the time, but later on after I had beaten the DLC I decided to make prices on all of my properties as low a possible just to see what would happen. Within 24 hours, everyone in Albion thought I was a saint! It was just too easy to swing my character from one side of the moral spectrum to the other.
Anyways, that was what really broke Fable 2 for me. Here’s hoping Molyneaux gets his act together on Fable 3.
I actually like this idea. One of the reasons I don’t like most MMORPGs is because they’re so focused on stat-based loot. Not only does everyone end up looking the same this way, but it’s lame when you can’t get into a party because you don’t have specific gear.
I’d much rather look the way I want to and let my skills do the talking than be dressed for success, but look like an idiot.
Consequences should resonate throughout an entire game, not just in a single moment (i.e. the twist in Fable II). Switching your alignment after years of murdering the elderly and giving small children wedgies shouldn’t be something you can just erase.
Developers shy away from permanence in games because they’re afraid players will cry foul at not being able to change something after the fact. As far as I’m concerned, if the dev clearly explains to the player that their choices will have permanent consequences, the player can’t complain. They only have themselves to blame.
That is why I no longer listen to what Peter Molyneux says or even pay attention to any updates on the games. This is probably why I liked Fable 2 better than the first one, because I had no idea how it was supposed to be, therefore I was not disappointed and loved every minute of it. I also felt that Fable was too magical and Harry Potter-ish, which kind of annoyed me.
The fable franchise always suffers under its own hype. The games aren’t bad. In fact they’re a lot of fun. But I’d barely consider them RPGs, To me they always more closely resembled an action adventure title like Zelda.
One of the things that really bothered me most in Fable 2 was the hyped social interaction. It was so shallow and pointless. None of the characters really mattered, nor were any of them really any different from one another. Sure you could have a husband or wife, but there was no reason for you to grow attached to any of the NPCs.
Sadly the social interactions with NPCs is simply another drop in the bucket for hyped features that fail to deliver in the Fable franchise.
The problem with Fable games was peter molyneux himself, he needs to learn how to shut his trap about the friggin game; For Fable2 all he did was give out spoilers about the new additions to the serious and once you play the game your finding yourself with a game you’ve already expected. Maybe thats me,, but i think it wouldn’ve done better with more time of polish and less conference talk; Yea im one of those people now, who believe nothing what that man has to say. He’s truly had too much of the sauce (drugs) lmao