Fable 2 from Lionhead

"I learned my lesson from Fable 1"

Haha, didn't we all. Molyneux flat out lied with regards to Fable 1. Fable was one of the most downgraded games, in all aspects; that I have ever seen. I actually think it takes the crown.

He talks too much, that does not mean he is lying. He just spoke prematurely about things that they were working on and were in game for a while that they had to later on remove, because of time constrains or tech limitations or whatever...
 
He talks too much, that does not mean he is lying.
Absolutely! Plans change. A lie is a deliberate and knowing misleading of people. A lie knows you're not speaking the truth. Molyneux just says what he wants to do, but reality makes it hard and things get dropped. In his case, lots of things. But he's no liar. He's just a victim of too much untempered optimism.
 
Absolutely! Plans change. A lie is a deliberate and knowing misleading of people. A lie knows you're not speaking the truth. Molyneux just says what he wants to do, but reality makes it hard and things get dropped. In his case, lots of things. But he's no liar. He's just a victim of too much untempered optimism.


agreed.

there are different types of people in the world. Some are black and white who see only logic and details and facts. Others are visionaries and dreamers. It's those, with grandiose ideas; reaching for stars and hitting the moon that the others call liars. ;)
 
I really loved black & white , though I didnt finish it all the way through either. One of the more memorable games I played. I don't agree with the people (read: majority) who bashed it. It wasn't a perfect game, but I loved it, and so did my mom (which is a rarity).
B&W 1 was a little too complicated and a little too difficult (without the bugs that allowed you to basically get inifinate resources), B&W 2 was a little simpler and was an easier game to get into because of it - I completed 2, but never 1.
 
B&W 1 was a very interesting concept that didn't deliver. I had fun experimenting with the pet mechanics, but the game became extremely difficult as you had to micro-manage your towns and try to control your pet at the same time. Perhaps I should try B&W 2.

Fable felt like an experiment rather than a complete game. Many of the features were interesting, but felt incomplete. I still enjoyed playing it, but I'm really looking forward to playing Fable 2. I suppose I'd have to get an XB360 for that.
 
Not a Fable 2 presentation but Molyneux's presentation on combat. I agree with his points on using the environment, and combat being more about looking for an opportunity rather than gradually reducing hitpoints (something I've wanted for years!). I'm very uncertain about the single button though. Seems to me in any situation players will just start hammering that action button and have the AI decide the most appropriate action, at which point the player is doing no more than turning a glorifed key to power a robotic character. The player should be given the choices on whether to throw items, pick them up, hit or block. Leave that to the AI and you have no game whatsoever.
 
B&W 1 was a very interesting concept that didn't deliver. I had fun experimenting with the pet mechanics, but the game became extremely difficult as you had to micro-manage your towns and try to control your pet at the same time. Perhaps I should try B&W 2.
The concept of a pet is depricated in B&W2. IIRC it needs far less micromanagement, and generall is a little more of a help if you just leave it to its own devices.
 
The concept of a pet is depricated in B&W2. IIRC it needs far less micromanagement, and generall is a little more of a help if you just leave it to its own devices.

Ok, maybe I won't play it. The pet was the most interesting part of the original title. I found the empire building aspect to be the least interesting. If B&W2 was pet heavy but left you with more time to give it attention, I would be more interested.
 
Peter really sold me on the dog idea, really great concept and they seem to have identified the most important areas.

It's pretty cool that, no matter how hurt your dog is, he will track you down, because he cares about you SO much! I can really envision the gameplay where you leave your dog behind, then begin to miss him, and one day he just shows up, crawling on 2 legs, that will definately pull out some of that emotion Peter was talking about.

Now, if they would just let me model the dog after my childhood dog Rufus, I would be completely hooked. Hopefully you can choose the look of your dog.

Not to sure on the kid idea, seems a little cheesy, though it could be cool if the kid turns out to actually be useful, and even fights with you on your quests.
 
I really liked the dog demonstration--he actually made me feel bad for the dog! And although a test level I liked how the world was "alive" with trees swaying and such and the resultant shadows.
 
I agree. Gamespot's video and one of GameTrailer's videos has the fly-through of Bowerstone and some country locales. The graphics are pretty darn good from what I can judge. The shadows are quite well done, there's decent detail, the trees animate and cast shadows, they have some volumetric/atmospheric light effects, the draw distance is way more Project Ego than Fable, etc. For being this far away from release, I'm quite satisfied.

Kudos to Fran et al.
 
Having seen the dog demo now, I have to say I'm very impressed! I think it'll work very well, and they've got the physical behaviour down pat that it looks realistic. The animal is believable and is bound to have an emotional attachment for most players. As long as the AI doesn't get screwy! t's also obvious why they chose only a dog, because for other animals, they won't get the same loyal behaviour if they're being realistic. Then again, maybe a large lizard or tiger that behaves like a dog will be just as appreciated? It's the character of dog's that's essential, but the creatures appearance could be adapted. Not that I mind, but some people aren't keen on dogs (maybe this can convert them!).
 
Very impressed with this title and the direction it is taking. Love the concept of the dog as well as time period it is set in (nothing really has ever been associated with 17th century in the rpg realm, or at least nothing worth mentioning ;) ).


Im somewhat concerned over the concept of money and its value in the game. Im intrigued by the ability to purchase real estate or even whole towns, but to what extent is money involved in the story line or advancement of the story line. Is the ability to continue the story or undergo much of the gameplay dependant on what I can and cannot afford to buy??
 
Molyneux said (in some article I cannot recall) that you can make your way through the game as a heroic pauper, kind of like a monk. So I think ownership and money are just another customization you have for your character. I imagine the story changes somewhat based on how rich you are, but that's just my imagination.
 
I have checked the movie 2-3 times now and the ending even more just to let melt they whole dog thing. I guess it does look very promising, I like the animation very much of the thing and that you don't really have to control and micromanage the dog. This could become really good if implemented correctly so wait and see I guess.

As for the graphics especially the fly by I find them really good. I like how everything seems to cast and receive shahows and even more those volumetric(?) atmospheric effects like at the clock tower when the sun seems to be setting and so on, really great stuff. And furthermore, I am really pleased that the art direction is intact, I just love it and that was what made the first Fable great as well, purely amazing stuff, the look and feel are just right, I don't know if that art style would work if Fable was to be taking place in the world of today but for those older times it is perfect. So indeed, kudos to Fran et al...
 
Very impressed with this title and the direction it is taking. Love the concept of the dog as well as time period it is set in (nothing really has ever been associated with 17th century in the rpg realm, or at least nothing worth mentioning ;) ).


Im somewhat concerned over the concept of money and its value in the game. Im intrigued by the ability to purchase real estate or even whole towns, but to what extent is money involved in the story line or advancement of the story line. Is the ability to continue the story or undergo much of the gameplay dependant on what I can and cannot afford to buy??

Most likely not, which depending on how you see it can be a bit dissapointing. On the one hand it is an RPG and hence you should be able to make your choices and play the game the way you want so if you don't want to own stuff and become rich thatis your choice, on the other hand there might be a little bit like in the original Fable which had so many things you could do but most likely most players never discovered them as it was not nesessary to complete the game.

So I guess it is a balance thing between it being an RPG and giving you choices and between trying to pitch you stuff to try and explore as many aspects of the game as possible and depending where you stand you might either find it dissaponting or good...
 
Theres a new developer diary dated today posted on the Lionhead site:
http://www.lionhead.com/diaries.html

It discusses love in the game, again wrt to the dog. Not sure if its old footage but there's suppsedly some in-engine, realtime stuff at the end. I can't watch it at the office so apologies if its old.
 
cool developer diary on XB Live last month that I watched too... very informative look at the team at Lionhead (and some footy to boot ;))

hi Fran! ;)
 
Back
Top