Fable III Catch-All

LobsterMobster wrote:

He has made some great stuff and even though all of his games fall short they still do interesting things and are worth playing. It's just rather frustrating to see him constantly fail to deliver a new age in gaming.

That's the impression I've gotten. The tree story, I heard that one. But, and I'm seriously having trouble believing I'm about to type this, how integral is the farting mechanic? If I decide my Fable Dude has some dignity and self-restraint, am I locking myself out of a major part of the game? If this were GTA, would it be closer to not doing taxi jobs, or not doing missions for criminals?

I'm being a jerk and asking about 2, here, by the way.

If it's anything like Fable II, farting is just an emote. Some people will find it funny, others will be disgusted by it. For some people, it's the funniest thing in the world. You can still make friends with those people by doing other things so unless there's a puzzle that requires you to do specific emotes (would not be the first time) and that puzzle requires you to do a fart (would be the first time), you will not need to fart if you don't want to. Or burp, or do the chicken dance.

It isn't even like refusing to do taxi jobs. It's more like refusing to use shotguns. That insignificant.

If it seems like farting is a major part of the game that's only because the good folks making the trailers think it's really, really funny.

Good to know. Not that it would have dissuaded me utterly, but if it was, like, the foundation of random NPC interaction or something, I'd want to go in prepared.

There is nothing undignified about the chicken dance. It's very offensive in Mexico, though. How central is Mexico in the Fableverse?

IMAGE(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/chicken-dance-arrested-development-748926_370_250.jpg)

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Sooo...being a new 360 possessor...curious to experience the works of this divisive Molyneaux figure...how indicative of the game is this flatulence business?

I skipped the official hype train for Fable 2 and found a game with very engaging combat and a well-designed world that was an idealized version of Olde Englande. It also has a bunch of stupid crap that you can completely ignore, such as farting, clapping, and frowny faces.

How upset you get with Peter Molyneux with each new game depends entirely on how closely you follow the press leading up to that game's release. Molyneux has a big mouth and likes to make promises that he can't quite deliver on; if you know that going in, or if you don't know anything about it, you're unlikely to be annoyed when some of the game's promised mechanics (trees into acorns) aren't implemented as fully as Molyneux's hype would suggest.

I played both Fable and Fable II without having heard any of what was said about them prior to release, and I was satisfied with both games on their own merits. From that perspective, being able to do something like plant an acorn that is later an oak seems less like one of the game's defining features and more like a fun Easter egg.

As to the fart jokes and "period inappropriate" costumes: they're there, but they're not integral, can be easily ignored, and aren't as incongruous with the world as you might expect. The Fable games exist in a fantasy world along the lines of Peter S. Beagle; there are intentional anachronisms and meta-humor (at one point in Fable II, you revisit the hero's hometown from Fable and find a tombstone for, of all things, a teddybear), there are somewhat silly takes on traditional fantasy creatures like kobolds and goblins, and there's a good deal of broad humor, but the story is unafraid to take sudden, violent turns. Some people don't like that kind of fantasy tale that can be bawdy, silly, and quite dark all at once. I've seen a number of critics complaining about the light tone of Fable II as contrasted with its brutal Tower sequence and bleak ending, but it's as accepted a form of fantasy (if somewhat less popular) as the more straight-laced Dungeons & Dragons clones.

The Fable world is actually very well crafted. It feels like a place. The monster design is inspired. All the silly sandboxy jokes and stuff is just something you might want to play around with. I expected to just play it as a straight fantasy hero romp, but all the other stuff completely swept me away. I forgot about the game having a plot for, oh, some 20-30 hours. When you do get back to the plot, it's actually a quite engaging yarn, well told and packs enough surprises to keep you guessing.

So, in short: you don't have to make a joke about it. But you can. Very much like GTA.

Now that ClockworkHouse mentions it... Fable is really the gaming equivalent of a Terry Pratchett novel.

Duoae wrote:

Now that ClockworkHouse mentions it... Fable is really the gaming equivalent of a Terry Pratchett novel.

That was the other author I was looking for. Thanks, Duoae.

I have never bought into the hype for these games, which has meant that I have been able to enjoy them thoroughly. Nevertheless, I find myself rolling my eyes at everything Molyneux says.

I think what got me about this is the character holding the person's face at their butt. What's next? Scat humor?

DSGamer wrote:

I think what got me about this is the character holding the person's face at their butt. What's next? Scat humor?

They talk (well sing) about Cleveland steamers in songs... so why not?

Duoae wrote:

Now that ClockworkHouse mentions it... Fable is really the gaming equivalent of a Terry Pratchett novel.

Not nearly as funny, though.

Molyneux has really toned down what he says in the last few years. I don't remember any big promises he made for Fable 2 that didn't make it into the game. And so far the hype for Fable 3 has been incredibly subdued.

Honestly, I miss the old Molyneux. I liked getting excited for his games. Even if he didn't deliver, the way he talked about his games made me remember why I love games, and think about the amazing places that they're going to go in the future.

muttonchop wrote:
Duoae wrote:

Now that ClockworkHouse mentions it... Fable is really the gaming equivalent of a Terry Pratchett novel.

Not nearly as funny, though.

Depends on whether you like him or not. Personally i prefer Fable humour and world to Discworld.

Molyneux has said in an Edge interview that he really regrets being so vocal about projects so early. With Fable II Lionhead let out very little before it was out there and what do you know - they basically delivered on everything that was supposed to be in the original.

Also his new role at Microsoft Game Studios is not really Lionhead/Fable specific.

Clockwork wrote:

I've seen a number of critics complaining about the light tone of Fable II as contrasted with its brutal Tower sequence and bleak ending, but it's as accepted a form of fantasy (if somewhat less popular) as the more straight-laced Dungeons & Dragons clones.

Those critics have wrong opinions and should feel bad. It may be the case that once upon a time a pie fell off a windowsill and hit someone square in the face, and it was hilarious... even if it fell due to the reverberations of falling bombs, and the person it hit was already dead. Neither physics nor coincidence know the concept of "poor taste."

0kelvin wrote:

Molyneux has really toned down what he says in the last few years. I don't remember any big promises he made for Fable 2 that didn't make it into the game. And so far the hype for Fable 3 has been incredibly subdued.

I remember a few, including stuff that made it in but was then cut out for PR reasons. For instance, in one interview he discussed the physical changes to a female character during pregnancy, which was later cut since some people apparently have a problem with a pregnant woman getting beaten up by a pack of balverines. I don't chalk that one up to over-promising, really. More like cost-benefit analysis, in that it didn't do much for the experience but could have won the game an ocean of negative PR. Still, it was in and then it was out.

People keep trotting out that "acorn" example, though. It's a perfect example of how Molyneaux operated. In the run-up to Fable II he said you'd have such a direct effect on the world you could plant an acorn and then that tree would always be there, and it would grow into a big ol' oak over the course of the game. Of course, it turns out that there is exactly ONE place you can do this, with one acorn, it happens during a cutscene, and is required for game progression. A far cry from planting trees in your yard so you could enjoy them later in the game. Yet he never mentioned how restricted that feature was. In fact, he kept talking about it and kept using the "acorn" example, even long after it HAD to have been obvious that's all we were getting.

Thank you, Lobster. So much comes from the man's mouth that I had forgotten all the examples, but they're out there.

We all have our little gifts. Mine is remembering the minor failings of others.

And as I recall, most of the "new" features in Fable II were stuff he dropped from Fable.

Grenn wrote:

And as I recall, most of the "new" features in Fable II were stuff he dropped from Fable.

By Fable 10 we'll get the Fable he always wanted unless he keeps adding features.

Grenn wrote:

And as I recall, most of the "new" features in Fable II were stuff he dropped from Fable.

The acorn thing in particular was something he promised for Fable 1. Fable 2 still has only a fraction of the features he said were going to be in the first game.

I'd still say that Fable II has way more options and features than it actually needs to be a good game. They make it what it is, but less would easily suffice.

DSGamer wrote:
Grenn wrote:

And as I recall, most of the "new" features in Fable II were stuff he dropped from Fable.

By Fable 10 we'll get the Fable he always wanted unless he keeps adding features.

Yeah, except then he'll be off on some other gimmick like a controller for your dog so you can get realistic dog that acts like a dog and responds to you like your dog responds to you. And also the dog can fart and if he starts licking the screen the NPC will react to it.

And it'll still have one-button combat, because everyone knows that the hardcore gamer is part of a less important demographic than, say, his mom. And his mom is really a gamer at heart, it's just these darn controllers are so darn intimidating.

jlaakso wrote:

I'd still say that Fable II has way more options and features than it actually needs to be a good game. They make it what it is, but less would easily suffice.

I like how in Yahtzee's review for Fable II he says "I guess I missed the short story where Conan The Barbarian took up bartending". Lol.

LobsterMobster wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Grenn wrote:

And as I recall, most of the "new" features in Fable II were stuff he dropped from Fable.

By Fable 10 we'll get the Fable he always wanted unless he keeps adding features.

Yeah, except then he'll be off on some other gimmick like a controller for your dog so you can get realistic dog that acts like a dog and responds to you like your dog responds to you. And also the dog can fart and if he starts licking the screen the NPC will react to it.

And it'll still have one-button combat, because everyone knows that the hardcore gamer is part of a less important demographic than, say, his mom. And his mom is really a gamer at heart, it's just these darn controllers are so darn intimidating.

I'm starting to think you don't really like Pete Molyneaux.

My problem with Fable 2 is that I ended up maxing out my abilities well before the endgame. Without the powering-up carrot, the combat wasn't engaging enough on it's own. Also, seems like something they've fixed for 3 is that magic no longer seems to require you to stand around getting smacked while your spell charges up.

Vector wrote:

I'm starting to think you don't really like Pete Molyneaux.

I actually admire the hell out of the guy and have been a victim of his hype many, many times. I will continue to be. Doesn't mean I can't be furious about it!

Peter Molyneux is one of those game designers that I think would benefit from having to develop with a very limited budget. Sadly he can pretty much write his own cheques and the only way that's going to happen is by misfortune.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Vector wrote:

I'm starting to think you don't really like Pete Molyneaux.

I actually admire the hell out of the guy and have been a victim of his hype many, many times. I will continue to be. Doesn't mean I can't be furious about it! ;)

I'm starting to think you're a sucker.

Molyneux is a brilliant man, but he's a terrible PR guy. Lionhead needs to muzzle him until after each game's release date and let someone else do the talking.