35 réponses à ce sujet

[Pious_Augustus]

http://kotaku.com/54...fables-features

Does Lionhead seriously want to push all there fans away like Square Enix and Japanese Developers have done for the past ten years? Try something new, try to streamline it and make it more action less story?

[Chaos-fusion]

If they make Fable 3 more 'streamlined', it will practically play itself. Ah well, I was going to skip it anyway.

[Jonp382]

Not good to hear, but that's what most companies seem to be thinking nowadays.

Need to sell >5m units

That's really sad.

[AshedMan]

Kotaku Article...
What if we move Fable toward an action adventure?

I was under the impression that Fable WAS an action adventure RPG.  

Modifié par AshedMan, 12 mars 2010 - 03:06 .

[slackbheep]

In the post: Molyneux assumes Fable is more important than it is.

[Ekyri]

Most people hardly used most of the features in the game. I don't see the problem in removing those features.

[KnightofPhoenix]

He speaks as if Fable was such a complicated rpg. Are you kidding me?

The game was fun and I like it, but difficult? It seems that the problem is with humanity andn ot game developpers.

[Allison W]

I have to wonder how someone could fail to understand Fable II's features, as I didn't have any trouble using all of them.



Then again, I'm weird and actually liked how amazingly inclusive the game was.

[orpheus333]

Lionhead games have always been a ****-storm of good ideas poorly presented and integrated. Black & White, Fable and their sequels are all the same in this respect.

[Captain Chordata]

AshedMan wrote...

Kotaku Article...
What if we move Fable toward an action adventure?

I was under the impression that Fable WAS an action adventure RPG.  

I only played the first one, but I didn't think it was much of an RPG either. It felt more like Zelda with a crappy karma system, clunkier combat, and a lame story that had no constant tone. It just keep seesawing between badly written drama and badly written comedy.

It also has the distinction for me of being one of the few games where I hated all the characters in it. In games with Good/Evil I usually play a good character first. Five hours and I quit to be a bad guy because I had reached the breaking point and needed to start killing everyone.

I got to the part where you were on a dock somewhere and had to fight multiple mobs to reach something before a timer gave out, and just stopped caring and gave up. It was just a horribly unbalanced action-adventure with token RPG elements chucked in so they could claim it had complexity or something. It was only marginally less stupid than Black and White. I dunno what part two is like, but if it's anything like the first, there isn't anything to simplify as is. And hell, it's not like any of Lionhead's or Bullfrog's games were that complex anyway.

The real problem is Peter Molyneux just doesn't realize he hasn't made anything entertaining since the Dungeon Keeper games. Black and White was a bad RTS Tamaguchi thing, The Movies was a boring tycoon game mixed with a limited machinima maker, and Fable was a bad Zelda clone pretending to be an actual RPG. He's become an egomaniac with no sense of reality. This just looks like he's pulling statistics out of his ass to cover that Lionhead's games don't sell well because they have horrible design flaws. I think he just needs to retire.

[XOGHunter246]

I was hugely disappointed in the last 2 fables far too easy and I did not get much of a feel for them I will not be buying this one unless it longer and has more depth and re-playability. 

Modifié par XOGHunter246, 12 mars 2010 - 06:54 .

[Baracuda6977]

i feel like i understood the features but i might have been completely missing most of them...

[Caozen]

Why does Fable always have to seem like it could have been so much more? Really, I've never felt this way about any other game before.

[Pious_Augustus]

Caozen wrote...

Why does Fable always have to seem like it could have been so much more? Really, I've never felt this way about any other game before.

Because the first Fable promised features that never made it in the game. They had gameplay videos and such but this is not something they changed a year or six months before release to give us notice, they announced 85% of what they promised and showed and the content would not be in Fable I a month before release.

I remember waking up a month before the release of Fable and IGN proudly announced when it most likely got a kick back that 85% of the features promised are no longer in the final product.  Even a month after the release, the Fable Site failed to update it self on the features in the game.

Thats when the public blasted Lionhead which eventually forced the Lionhead CEO to come out and offically apologize.

Then Pete did it again and announced The Lost Chapters and claimed it would add a whole new game and most of the features it promised. A disgruntled Lionhead employee leaked the final copy 6 months before release and showed only four hours of content where added and not much more. Lionhead came out and claimed it was not the finished product but go figure it was.

Lionhead has a bad reputation for promising things and never delivering or talking about unpopular changes like selling Fable 2 in slices.

Modifié par Pious_Augustus, 13 mars 2010 - 02:01 .

[Haasth]

Hah, wow.. One way to make a poor statement. Didn't understand less than half of it's features? Surely they must be talking about a different franchise.

I played both Fable games, own both of them, and I quite liked the first on the Xbox. The second on the 360 was a big let down. The best part was probably the simulation part of the game... the story was mediocre, the feel of the game was a bit too comic-style for me and the gameplay was mediocre too... Now Fable 3 actually sounds promising from what I know of it (which is this: http://www.petroglyp...13693-fable-iii) And I look forward to seeing where that goes... but a statement like this just makes me laugh.

Modifié par Haasth, 12 mars 2010 - 11:57 .

[Caozen]

Pious_Augustus wrote...

Lionhead has a bad reputation for promising things and never delivering or talking about unpopular changes like selling Fable 2 in slices.

I always thought of Fable as a concrete example of wasted potential, but never really understood why. I just assumed it to be the whole hybrid feel to the game mechanics, and how poorly fleshed out most of the system was. As great as it sounds to hear how streamlined Lionhead is wishing to make the sequel, the conference meeting just further amplifies the sense of a series drowning in its own indecisveness. 

At least now I know it was just that feeling of hype given by Molyneux. I remember reading some gaming magazine about the release of Fable II, and how you would be able to do all of these things with your dog or some-such, like it dramatically transforming depending on your alignment and how useful it would be in battle. The dog did manage to do some of these things, but it was hardly the way Lionhead said it would. I had no idea the situation was the same for the first game.

Kind of depressing, really. Fable (as a concrete RPG) would in my mind, just be absolutely perfect.

[Edit] I forgot to mention that what I really hated about both games were their lengths. For a game of that caliber, its kind of ridiculuous how short both 1 and 2 were.

Modifié par Caozen, 13 mars 2010 - 12:11 .

[Alexandus]

Fable 2 was a huge disappointment. I probably won't be playing Fable 3 in a looong while, if at all.

[Pious_Augustus]

Caozen wrote...

Pious_Augustus wrote...

Lionhead has a bad reputation for promising things and never delivering or talking about unpopular changes like selling Fable 2 in slices.

I always thought of Fable as a concrete example of wasted potential, but never really understood why. I just assumed it to be the whole hybrid feel to the game mechanics, and how poorly fleshed out most of the system was. As great as it sounds to hear how streamlined Lionhead is wishing to make the sequel, the conference meeting just further amplifies the sense of a series drowning in its own indecisveness. 

At least now I know it was just that feeling of hype given by Molyneux. I remember reading some gaming magazine about the release of Fable II, and how you would be able to do all of these things with your dog or some-such, like it dramatically transforming depending on your alignment and how useful it would be in battle. The dog did manage to do some of these things, but it was hardly the way Lionhead said it would. I had no idea the situation was the same for the first game.

Kind of depressing, really. Fable (as a concrete RPG) would in my mind, just be absolutely perfect.

[Edit] I forgot to mention that what I really hated about both games were their lengths. For a game of that caliber, its kind of ridiculuous how short both 1 and 2 were.

I was there since Project Ego and then how they claimed it was going to be a very long game where you can walk around and get lost.....Again the free roam and everything was taken out Fable. You couldn't simple walk around an open field like Morrowind and enter a town like what they promised and showed in gameplay videos....thats what killed me...a month before launch and they completely remove everything.

When Resident Evil 4 did this, they at least gave us months and months of advance notice.

I liked Fable but indeed the games are short. I remember a Moderator comparing Morrowind GOTY edition and Fable TLC that Fable should be resold full price since it adds so much.

Let's be honest, Fable TLC adds in four hours of max content that you can run through in an hour to be honest.  The two expansions for Morrowind have about 40 or more hours each of quests which each expansion if played alone would be longer then both Fable and it's mini expansion.

[Baracuda6977]

omg thats awesome, would be sweeter if it looked like something though...

[Jalem001]

Its nice to see that pretty much everyone feels the same way about the Fable games.



I think Peter's ego ruined the games. Pretty sure he thinks he ****s gold.

[Caozen]

Jalem001 wrote...

Its nice to see that pretty much everyone feels the same way about the Fable games.

I think Peter's ego ruined the games. Pretty sure he thinks he ****s gold.

Him and Richard Garriot are quite alike in this respect.

[Allison W]

Hey now, I actually liked Fable II. I didn't play the original, though.



I just wish someone could properly muzzle Pete and make him work with developers who can actually get **** done. Like BioWare or Bethesda or Volition Inc. (Saints Row 2). Because then his good ideas might actually see a good execution.

[FreezaSama]

Pious_Augustus wrote...

Does Lionhead seriously want to push all there fans away like Square Enix and Japanese Developers have done for the past ten years? Try something new, try to streamline it and make it more action less story?

I think Peter Molyneux would rather think people didn't understand half of the features, as opposed to just not caring. Some of his ideas are just too ambitious to work out well in a game, especially when the technology can't always support them. I may check out Fable III, but I'm not looking forward to it like I was the last two titles. No doubt it'll make it to retail with more of the same technical issues Fable II had. Let's just hope there's nothing game-breaking like disappearing spouses.