Gobbets! Fable 3 On PC

By Alec Meer on May 15th, 2010 at 12:41 pm.

Ready? I’m going to spam at you, right at your face. A few quickfire news stories we didn’t manage to cover during the week, just so you fine fellows and fellowettes have a place to discuss them. The ever-pleasingly erudite RPS comments threads are (for the most part – can the more regular bickerers please relax?) one of the shining jewels of this here website, after all.

So, gobbet the first – is Fable 3 coming to PC, despite the second one skipping our hallowed platform? Box art (above) says yes, Microsoft says “shuddup, shuddup!” Or, more precisely, “”We have not made any official announcements beyond ‘Fable III’ for Xbox 360 at this time.” Hmm.

__________________

« | »

.

63 Comments »

  1. Heliocentric says:

    Had a bloody good time playing fable. I wish that overlord, fable and majesty (or settlers 7) would get into a sexy threeway and have a baby.

    A story overlaid onto a adventure game with city building elements

  2. JohnDoe says:

    Pro
    - Another PC RPG!
    Con
    - Fable is rubbish

    • AndrewC says:

      Don’t think of it as an RPG and you’ll enjoy it a lot more.

    • Crush says:

      Fable 2 is like The Sims with combat, managing relations ships and all that jazz its much more casual than the first game.

      Fable 3 is probably even more “casual” so yeah I’m not sure, personally I dont think most self identifying PC gamers will be jumping for joy at this.

    • Adventurous Putty says:

      Fable has always been an RPG-lite that focuses more on character and worldbuilding than on stats and detail. So it’s a bit glib, but always a pleasant play.

  3. Mario Figueiredo says:

    Wikipedia says it will be for PC. So now they have to do it.

    Molyneux had some interesting things to say about it way back then. The one that caught my interest the most was that he wanted to stray away from the usual start weak -> grow strong -> kill boss –> game ends. He wanted to give players the experience of playing the game as strong characters too, right when the game may be more fun. He definitely convinced me there.

    Besides, I’d like to go back to playing Fable, if Microsoft doesn’t mind.

  4. Antsy says:

    Tentatively….good news (Too much Mass Effect this week).

    I loved Fable. I loved running around having people call me Arseface. Fable 2 didn’t do much for me, and did nothing at all for me when my second and final 360 did a parrot sketch on me.

  5. Finn says:

    Lionhead-Microsoft… I never felt so betrayed (as a PC gamer) by a company/development team as with Lionhead; sure, they sold out to Microsoft and as such to what platforms they release is strictly Microsoft’s business but still, I can’t help but feel betrayed, specially after having bought B&W and it’s expansions, The Movies and Fable TLC. Time and time again it seems they use the “console games aren’t pirated” excuse to keep pumping console-exclusive games while the likes of Bioware and Bethesda show how (economically) viable their PC RPG’s are.

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      Just last weekend I was playing B&W all over again.
      True, my nostalgia only lasted those 24 hours. But it’s still a brilliant game… and still pretty.

      Never bought the expansion though. I seem to remember some other game got in the way and I eventually skipped it. You reminded me I should probably get it.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I enjoyed both of the black and white games more when i played them as peaceful city builders and ignored the plot and the shit stupid pet… To be fair i quite enjoyed the b&w2 pet, but it was pretty much a robot in that game… A robot which ate old people and crapped on crops.

    • Grunt says:

      I consider B&W Lionhead/Bullfrog’s Shark-Jumping moment. The moment when Molyneux’s famed creativity failed to produce anything remotely compelling. And Fable was naff, frankly. A child’s toy of an RPG.

      I pine for the days of Populous, Magic Carpet and (happy sigh) Dungeon Keeper.

    • Oddtwang says:

      I parsed that as you describing The Movies as an expansion to Black & White. That would have been an interesting move.

    • terry says:

      My problem with Black and White was it was too much brave new UI covering a pretty ho-hum Populous The Beginning clone with shoe-horned Tamagotchi BS. Populous 2 was a far better god game, The Sims did Tamagotchi with more flair. All that’s really left was technology showcasing (worm coming out of apple!!!1) and the usual amazing Peter Molyneux showboating. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a genuine luminary and I am possibly one of the three people in the world who still load The Movies with a sense of optimism, but Lionhead’s output has been so mixed I really think I’d prefer the new and exciting bells and whistles to take a back seat to the good old Bullfrog design sensibilities. I’m worried that if I tried Fable 3 it would be a nasty shock to my nostalgia :-(

  6. Mr Fossy says:

    The first Fable on the Xbox made me realise how prejudiced I am against the elderly – I stopped playing as soon as my hero went grey.

    • Heliocentric says:

      You can reverse aging in fable, but maybe only after finishing the story.

    • Tuor says:

      It was ridiculous how easily you could get to look around 40 years older than your older sister (the blind chick). While I can understand the idea of having your character age in the game, Fable took it to absurd extremes. The reverse aging method, from what I read about it, is sort of tricky to pull off, and is based off of exploiting a flaw in the coding (it was only intended to be used once).

      It may seem strange, but the whole aging thing was one of the biggest issues I had with the game.

  7. oceanclub says:

    Fable 2 was vaguely enjoyable for while, but is extremely casual. I mean, it’s more of a casual game than Plants vz. Zombies. This was Molyneaux’s intent so I guess it was why he made it console-only. But according to a thread on the Guardian’s games blog, he plans for Fable 3 to be even more casual. I can’t see how that would be possible without the game virtually playing itself.

    P.

    • Michael says:

      Casual or not, I just wish the man would hire a competent writer to pen the story this time -_-;
      Otherwise, I’d be willing to bet that at the 3/4 point the player is imprisoned by the big bad for idiotic reasons.

      @Oceanclub Could I trouble you for a link to that blog entry?

    • Michael says:

      Thank you kindly ^^
      I couldn’t help but notice this in the comments thread though:

      “You’re saying it’s fun, and I nowhere denied that. However, playing snowballs is also fun, but I doubt anyone would argue that activity is deep, meaningful, or has interesting mechanics.”

      I would like to argue that snowball fights are indeed full of interesting mechanics! Simply imagine the physics involved~ ;D

      Concerning the actual discussion, I’ve come to the conclusion that everything he fails to mention as a “feature” will be virtually unchanged from Fable 2. I guess I’ll have to choose between a brown-haired white girl or boy again -_-;
      Maybe by Fable 6, we’ll be able to customize our character’s eye color.

  8. Stense says:

    Fable the first and second completely missed me by. Are they worth looking into at all, for someone who likes a good rpg here and there?

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      If there is a game that you have to try it to define it yourself, Fable surely is that game. You’ll hear too many (more than in your typical game) love and hate stories. You won’t be able to make up your mind.

      I could tell you that I approached the game expecting a typical, if slightly childish, RPG. There were promises of interesting concepts, but the game essentially failed to deliver in all of them, without exception; some promised features were not included, and those that were didn’t make the game special in any way. For instance, playing with an evil alignment feels so unnatural in the face of Fable’s game main plot and quest system as in any other game that boasts about allowing you to play evil. The RPG that truly works out the Good-Evil conundrum, has yet to be made.

      However, I found myself still having fun with it. It’s a lightweight game, almost casual as mentioned before by Oceanclub on this thread. I could say that the game grew on me as maybe a no-brainer RPG, without too many complications, a nice combat system and just the right amount of character development features that don’t force you to replay because you messed up completely.

      Eventually I ended up playing the game for a few good months and enjoying it all the time. I was sadly disappointed at the decision to turn Fable 2 into a console exclusive.

    • Mr Labbes says:

      I have only played the first one on PC, but I’d say play it if you get the chance. It’s too easy, but it’s fun, has some great ideas about in-game “achievements”, it has hats and a cool antagonist.
      If that’s not enough, the graphics still look shiny and the music is quite good as well.

  9. Pleonasm says:

    I seem to be alone in this, but I really enjoyed fable 2 – possibly because I avoided reading anything at all that Mr. Molyneux said about it, so I could enjoy it for what it was rather than what it was supposed to have been.

    Maybe I should boot it up again, the whole ‘earn money while you’re not playing’ thing probably means that by now I have probably acquired the entirity of Albion’s monetary wealth and am hoarding it while everybody else is grubbing around in squalor.

    • Chaz says:

      Likewise I’ve enjoyed what I’ve played of Fable 2 so far, although it hasn’t really hooked me yet and I’ve not picked it back up for a few months now. Mind you I had a similar experience with Fallout 3 and when I finally picked it back up it had me hooked for weeks, so I might yet get sucked into Fable 2.

      Whilst Fable 2 might not be a stat heavy hardcore RPG, and that side of it is very simplified and casual, it does however offer up other many other activites that are absent in the vast majority of other RPG’s. You can buy up and rent out all of the property and shops found in the game, form releationships with people, get married and have kids, several times and then get caught and divorced. On that note the feedback you get from the population as your fame or noteriety grows feels a lot more natural than how most RPG’s handle it, ie with little more than greyed out conversation options, in Fable 2 you can even get arrested for indecent exposure, or put on ladies clothes and become a cross dresser. As your fame grows you can pose for and have statues made of you, have songs written about your exploits. Then of course there is you dog which you can teach all sorts of tricks. There’s just so many other little distractions you can do apart from the usual quests and dungeon crawls, granted most of it is just fluff but really does all add up and help make the world feel a bit more alive.

    • Michael says:

      The biggest problem I have with the game is the fact that the people are flat cardboard cutouts. I wish they would have opted to make the NPCs unique. If you killed someone, another faceless villager wouldn’t just pop in and replace them. It’s impossible to form an attachment to the bloody things when you can’t even distinguish between Female Villager A and B without close examination. This is an important bit of quality over quantity. Take Bully from Rockstar, each of the school’s students was represented by a unique NPC. Even if you never bothered to learn their names, you still got a sense of familiarity as you passed by “the red-head” or the “fat nerd.” If you then stuff said girl into a locker, you weren’t just shoving a nameless NPC you were doing this to someone you “knew.” I’d honestly prefer it if each township had 20 villagers that I “knew” than 100 randomly generated NPCs.

      This is how you draw in a “casual” crowd.

    • Michael says:

      The biggest problem I have with the game is the fact that the people are flat cardboard cutouts. I wish they would have opted to make the NPCs unique. If you killed someone, another faceless villager wouldn’t just pop in and replace them. It’s impossible to form an attachment to the bloody things when you can’t even distinguish between Female Villager A and B without close examination. This is an important bit of quality over quantity. Take Bully from Rockstar, each of the school’s students was represented by a unique NPC. Even if you never bothered to learn their names, you still got a sense of familiarity as you passed by “the red-head” or the “fat nerd.” If you then stuff said girl into a locker, you weren’t just shoving a nameless NPC you were doing this to someone you “knew.” I’d honestly prefer it if each township had 20 villagers that I “knew” than 100 randomly generated NPCs.

      I only mention this because Fable’s narrative has never been its strength, ironically enough. This is what they should have been focusing on to draw in a “casual” crowd. The gameplay is already accessible. The issue is that Molyneux alienates non-gamers by failing to provide them anyone to become attached to. Look at the Sims! Would it kill him to have a protagonist who decides to become an adventurer without there being some ridiculous tragedy to kill everyone he loves in the first 10 minutes? He’s already used that cliche twice in a row. How about having the hero taking up his father’s sword to slay a power mad sorceress or a corrupt king? Perhaps, the hero could be drawn up into a larger conflict while on some innocuous errand for his village chief. Plenty of cliches to draw from and neither needs the player’s home village to die. How about having the player’s home village act as their base? You could spend money to shore up it’s defenses and set yourself up as a righteous defender or an unruly tyrant.

      Hmm, I’ve ranted enough. I get a bit frustrated when I see a good game hampered by design issues, so any thoughts?

    • oceanclub says:

      ” You can buy up and rent out all of the property and shops found in the game”

      This is ridiculously easy to do if you don’t play the game very often, as you earn money in real-time. Since I haven’t played in about 2 months and already owned a considerable amount of rented-out property, I should be stinking rich next time I check in.

      “Fable 3: Slum Landlord”

      P.

    • Michael D says:

      @Ocean
      To be fair, the current system Is an improvement on the original. I broke the original’s economy in 5 minutes by buying/selling carrots.

    • oceanclub says:

      “To be fair, the current system Is an improvement on the original”

      Wow, how did the original’s system work?

      Oh, and after seeing the identikit characters in Fable 2 (including women nattering on about rings constantly), no one can ever slag off Oblivion again.

      P.

    • Michael D says:

      @Ocean
      Game followed the most basic concept of supply and demand concerning trade goods. Ex. If Merchant A has 0 Carrots, he’ll buy them at a premium whereas if he has 1000 Carrots he’ll sell them for next to nothing. I literally got to the first town and proceeded to buy up the guy’s entire stock of carrots thereby “cornering” the market. Bought and sold him the same bushel of carrots a couple dozen times with the profits going into purchasing more trade goods. Keep in mind, that I never even had to exit the merchant’s inventory. In about 5 minutes, I had enough to buy out every item in stock which I sold back to him at a massive profit. Thus began the heroic adventures of my nudist traveling carrot salesman.

    • Saiko Kila says:

      Fable 2 was absent on PC so I really couldn’t care less. I suppose it was too shitty to be saleable on this market. However, I slightly care for Fable 3, unless it has some sort of strict DRM (like constant online presence or something) in which case it would be shitty too.

    • RedFred says:

      @ Michael D: You sir, are a god.

  10. Mr Fossy says:

    I recall finding the melee combat pretty satisfying in Fable… But it was a long time ago, and I can scarcely remember why. It didn’t compel me to play the sequel, though. There’s just too many other RPGs to sink time into, I suppose.

  11. Jimbo says:

    So does this mean PC Natal, or a Natal-less PC version of Fable 3? Place bets now!

  12. /V/endetta says:

    YOU CAN DO ANYTHING !!

  13. Wulf says:

    I think Yahtzee’s reviews for me sum up my feelings about Fable the best. The first was all right, it had a sense of humour, it was a bit charming, and with breaking it into little pieces with third-party tools I got to be a werewolfy thing. Can’t argue with that. The second one…

    The second one I felt treated the player like an idiot, in almost every respect of the game. I’m not saying it’s too easy (even though it was) but it was something beyond that, there’s nothing wrong with something being too easy, but it was more… that it felt like the game was a Nanny which played large parts of the game for me, and told me off if I did something it didn’t think of as correct.

    Also, there’s a problem with choices in some games. In Obsidian games or something like Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines it doesn’t show much or even at all because of the quality of the writing, they’re very clever, but in Fable II it came up a bunch of times. The worst was at the very end.

    [ SPOILERS! ]

    “Hero, you’ve saved the realm and now you have three choices: raise the dead of your friends, bring your canine companion back to life, or infinite wealth.”

    “Hmm… well, my canine companion was actually instrumental in saving the world, and he did his fair share of fighting, too. He can’t go without a reward. It’d be pretty shitty of me to say, hey, you helped saved the world but now you get to languish in the underworld, wouldn’t it? If I’m going to get any kind of celebration for my efforts then so should he! So I say raise the dog, because after all of his hard work he bloody deserves it.”

    “YOU SELFISH BAST!!”

    “Wha–?!”

    “Oh, poor show, I expected better of you!”

    “Eh???”

    “Yeah, I don’t know, I was expecting a different choice… you’re so self-centred.”

    “What. Now look here–”

    “You could’ve raised our dead!”

    “Wait, what? I’M the selfish one, here?!”

    “Yes, you are, go and sulk in a corner, you bast.”

    “…well, this ending sucks.”

    And so on.

    I didn’t even bother with Knothole Island after that. So to those who’ve said that the game needs better writers… I whole heartedly agree, 100 per cent!

  14. Heliocentric says:

    Its selfish saving the dog? I would have thought saving 1 mammal was more ethically responsible than saving countless people, you know, in terms of necromancy being a dark art with consequences. Just a thought.

    • Wulf says:

      That was exactly my reaction!

      The game seems to operate on religious morals rather than ethics though, and you get that a lot throughout the game, this contributed to the whole Nanny feel of it all. Everything was very over-simplified, as if it expected a not-very-bright child to be the only one playing, and to be honest, I felt it was all a bit patronising.

      The thing is is that there’s potential there. The game is actually fun, the gameplay mechanics work, the dog is awesome, and it is possible to have a laugh playing it. But the whole Nannying thing, and the endless morality constantly hanging over the player’s head tends to ruin the experience, or at least it did for me. This is just my opinion, though, and I’m sure some will disagree. But that’s just how I saw it, y’know?

      And this was echoed in the end with the dog, instead of resurrecting the one mammal who was in-part responsible for saving so many lives, instead of rewarding him for being so selfless and sacrificing, I was apparently being selfish myself for wanting to reward him. I don’t know about anyone else, but I like a system of mutual aid, where if someone helps me I want to be able to help back, it’s just how I work. But the game gave me a real ear-lashing for not being selfless, because apparently selflessness is the true good. Hence the morality.

      What I’m getting at is that in Fable II, telling a person they did good and helping a person as much as they helped you isn’t actually a good act, in their topsy-turvy world it’s actually a selfish thing, and the best ending is brought about by resurrecting the countless dead relatives and friends of your party.

      I can look up YouTube videos of the various endings if anyone’s interested. But yeah, this level of morality and Nannying could really ruin Fable III for me. I can only hope they’ll back down on that, because I thought that Fable I was very, very good, and Fable II less so.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I guess it balances out black and white 2 where the easiest way to get the good ending was to sacrifice everyone at your altar including all refugees, your town would have 0 overcrowding and you would have plentiful mana, if you want keep a small number of breeders and sacrifice the babys.

      Anyway, its the good ending as long as you don’t attack the enemy settlements to capture them… But having your beast eat everyone in their town? Dandy!

    • Tom OBedlam says:

      Hahaha christ, you know you get sudden moments of self realisation from time to time? I just realised what a massive hippy and politics nerd I am when I read “I would have thought saving 1 mammal was more ethically responsible than saving countless people”, and though ‘well duh, think of how much damage raising countless people from the dead could do to the eco system and the economy!”

      I guess its a tough call as to what’s more the dark art: necromancy or economics…

  15. int says:

    Think there’s a chance we’ll get Fable 2, too?

  16. Meat Circus says:

    Fable II was aces, fact fans.

  17. Heliocentric says:

    In fable 1 my hero drank like 9 million potions, ate god knows how much fish and steak… And what was the agility food? Regardless, i’d get a 50 hit combo by spamming spells and potions then having bound the 3 ability based foods to seperate buttons go into the menu and spam those buttons and eat about 400 of each to max out every skill in one fight… Eh

  18. fizz144 says:

    come on as if any fellowettes read this site

  19. BigJonno says:

    My god there are a lot of joyless, curmudgeonly buggers on this site. The Fable games are lovely. They’re not exactly challenging, on any level, but they’re enjoyable, light-hearted and fun to play around with. I think a lot of people miss out on their best aspects because they are jam-packed with details and little touches that are completely unnecessary to finish the game. For example, Fable 2 did away with armour stats because the intention was for you to dress up your character how you wanted to, rather than to wear the “best” gear.

    If your the sort of person who plays games in a completely linear, efficient, A to B fashion, or you define gaming quality as how much it makes your thumbs bleed or your brain hurt, you’ll probably hate the Fable games. If you love whimsy, fairy-tales and stories about peasant boys becoming great and mighty heroes, if you enjoy dressing up your characters, playing around with the world and accepting that games can be toys, then you’ll love them.

  20. Bassism says:

    What a bizarre marketing decision, if they are indeed going to release it on pc.

    Make a game, release it on pc, mac, and xbox. Make a sequel, release it on xbox. Thus the large portion of your established fans can’t play it. Then make a another sequel, and decide to release it on pc again (sod those Apple cultists though). Announce that it will be even more rpg-lite than the second one, which will likely take some of the people you’ve already antagonized and convince them they don’t want to play it. Relax, and rake in the…. poor sales figures?

    Anyway, I found Fable 1 enjoyable enough, watched a buddy play Fable 2 for a bit, assumed it’d probably also entertain me. As usual, the things that Molyneux have talked about sound quite interesting. I wish he’d actually make a game that lives up to his vision again.

    • oceanclub says:

      “What a bizarre marketing decision, if they are indeed going to release it on pc.”

      I’ve love to find out what has changed to prompt them to change their mind. Have PC games sales prospects improved since Fable 1, perhaps with online sales and the like?

      P.

  21. Tom OBedlam says:

    I’ve played Fable II but I really enjoyed Fable a huge amount. Its proper lowest common denominator stuff, but thats the point. I mostly felt like I was playing something in between The Sims and Diablo, which was fine. I don’t think I ever replayed Fable but while I was playing it I had a cracking time. I especially loved each village having a different regional british accent, I think I was laughing for a good five minutes straight when I wandered in to town straight out of Tolkien and was immediately approached by a villager with a Scouse accent so thick you could float bricks on it.

  22. Klaus says:

    I bought the first Fable – was slightly disappointed in it – and never got a chance to play the second as I do not have a 360. My interest in the world of Fable has waned quite a bit. I still don’t have a clue why they didn’t release Fable 2 on the PC (piracy?). Oh well, I’m off to play Bloodlines (Damn Wulf).

  23. Urthman says:

    Shamus Young has a very good, in-depth extensive critique of how awful the plot of Fable 2 was:

    http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=2105

  24. squirrel says:

    hail, Microsoft!……

    Wait a minute, does the PC version requires online activation?

  25. TheSombreroKid says:

    the subtextual real reveal here is that natal is coming to pc surely?

  26. Sidorovich says:

    The first was a great action-rpg that I replayed through twice on the Oldbox. I was gutted when the second one bypassed the PC. I’d be more interested in a ‘special edition’ PC release of Fable 2 with all the extra DLC content for free thanks.

  27. Pijama says:

    Bastards better release Fable 2 first though. I have not played it, and avoided spoilers or anything FOR SO DAMN LONG that that corner of gamespace is totally oblivious to me.

    : [

  28. kirrus says:

    +1 Alec’s “shuddup, shuddup!” comment. I wish MS said exactly that once in a while.

    Also, the earning system limited you to realtime earnings of 48 hours or so, after which you’d stop earning, for some strange reason. Just as well, since my xbox went caput with all my saves on it, so I’d be annoyed if it they hadn’t ;)

    The morality choices at the end IMHO were a bit pointless. It was a game.. nothing that special. Of course, it also helps if you don’t have a family by the end, no matter how many marriages are offered to you. (For some reason, as I was playing I just had to speak to a lady for her to be offering me marriage.)

  29. rocketman71 says:

    So, MS, give us Fable 2 first. Oh, and fuck you.

  30. Hyperion says:

    That’s ok MS, some games can stay on the consoles.
    For some reason the only console game I want on PC is 3D Dot Game Heroes :T

  31. jeremypeel says:

    Fable 3 could be a lot of fun with this whole second-half-of-the-game-as-all-powerful-king-type deal. I just hope they put enough time into the mechanics for ruling and maybe dig up some of the old Bullfrog management game genius. I’m worried we’ll end up with a half-baked system where the only decision we get to make as king is whether to go and single-handedly protect the farmer’s homestead or not. That’s fine when these things only make up a small part of the game – like in Baldur’s Gate 2′s Troll Castle, for instance – but Lionhead need to offer more if they’re going to keep things interesting.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>