Fable at 20: a uniquely British video game with a complex legacy

Post by goles » Sun, Sep 22, 2024, 3:07 AM UTC

wheybags wrote: post #16

chuckadams wrote: post #14

I still remember chowing down on crunchy chicks to qualify for the evil quest lines >:)

It's the bones that make them crunchy

Post by blackeyeblitzar » Sun, Sep 22, 2024, 3:11 AM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #12

hibikir wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that era of gaming, just waiting a few years meant sequels were better just due to extra computing power, so yes, Fable II was better in most ways (although I'd argue the main story was worse). It was still trying to define many gameplay mechanics that are just standard fare for western made action RPGs. One can play Fable and Morrowind, then look at Skyrim, and see how it owes about as much to Fable as to Morrowi…

I'm disappointed in rpg's now. Once oblivion came out, they all seemed to stagnate and just be clones of that model. The problem is the market for a deep, deep rpg with skills based on time spent using them is probably pretty small. Because it's people like me who don't actually have the time needed to play them due to life nonsense. I desperately want the mechanics of Morrowind, but with modern graphics. The origina…

Post by narism » Sun, Sep 22, 2024, 3:20 AM UTC

gwern wrote: post #17

underlipton wrote: post #3

IIRC, II was considered superior, where a lot of the ideas were supposed to have matured and gelled to create a compelling experience. I didn't own a 360, so I never got to see for myself, but I did get to watch a few hours of gameplay while hanging out with my boyfriend at the time. A notable moment: he'd unlocked a Demon Door and was enthusiastically laying out how the game's real estate system worked, and his plan…

(You should probably spoil the surprise, because few of the readers of your comment are going to track down & buy a 16-year-old RPG, and spend the necessary 10 or 40 hours to reach that point and learn what the surprise is and how it illustrates anything of interest about the Fable games.)

Post by TeaBrain » Sun, Sep 22, 2024, 3:34 AM UTC

Sakos wrote: post #20

jszymborski wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent game that isn't worth a price of admission that is $0? Am I missing something?

Even free games have an opportunity cost, or do you have unlimited time and energy to spend on playing games? Not that I'm saying Moonring isn't worth it, but just because something is free doesn't mean it's free of critique or evaluation of quality.

Post by t-3 » Sun, Sep 22, 2024, 4:17 AM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #12

hibikir wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that era of gaming, just waiting a few years meant sequels were better just due to extra computing power, so yes, Fable II was better in most ways (although I'd argue the main story was worse). It was still trying to define many gameplay mechanics that are just standard fare for western made action RPGs. One can play Fable and Morrowind, then look at Skyrim, and see how it owes about as much to Fable as to Morrowi…

I'm disappointed in rpg's now. Once oblivion came out, they all seemed to stagnate and just be clones of that model. The problem is the market for a deep, deep rpg with skills based on time spent using them is probably pretty small. Because it's people like me who don't actually have the time needed to play them due to life nonsense. I desperately want the mechanics of Morrowind, but with modern graphics. The origina…