Fable III Features Magic, Cannons

The trailers must flow! E3 continues to disgorge the sticky contents of its hype gland all over the internet, and that includes the Fable 3 trailer. For some reason this reminds of that period of third-person action games that appeared in the time just after the first two Tomb Raider games. You know the ones, they all scored about 70% in PlayStation magazines, and were then forgotten. But anyway, the third Fable game was only recently confirmed for PC, where it will apparently be available to buy via digital download on GFWL. Heh.


  1. bleeters says:

    Damn you, comma. I wanted magic cannons.

  2. Rich says:

    “available to buy via digital download only”

    I thought it was going to be available through the usual retail market, but the only digital download service to stock it is going to be GFWL. I know this was discussed before, and I thought that was the conclusion.

    • Devan says:

      I know this is petty, but it always bugs me when I see the phrase “digital download”. It’s like “download” and “digital distribution” got mashed into a strange and redundant name. Aren’t all downloads digital?

    • Morti says:

      Well, you can always go ahead and download it analogously by painstakingly copying every single 0 and 1 in the binaries of the game on paper

    • bookwormat says:

      Aren’t all downloads digital?

      And isn’t all content that can be downloaded, DownLoadable Content?

    • Devan says:

      I think you misread the post, bookwormat. There’s nothing wrong with the term “downloadable content”. Unless it’s unreasonably priced, of course :)

  3. Doeke says:

    I can’t get the video to load in any browser. :(

  4. Tei says:

    The video is not flowing here. Maybe is a new type of video ..that need the latest version of GFWL and Flash installed to start the digital stream.

  5. Pijama says:


    Lionhead seriously doesn’t like us…

    (not to mention the MS game studios)

  6. WiPa says:

    Just watched Nintendo’s E3 Press Conference live. It was awesome.

  7. WiPa says:

    Also, i won’t be buying this no matter how good it is.

    GFWL is terrible.

    • Chris D says:

      GFWL is indeed terrible, but not an automatic write off (Ubisoft) for me. If the game is good enough I’ll put up with it (Arkham Asylum, DOW2). It does automatically drop my interest by at least 25% which is more than enough to put me off if there are any other negative factors, such as being priced at £39.99 for example.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      it’s true, there are plenty of GFWL games that are too good to be unplayed because of it.

    • WiPa says:

      @Chris D
      But judging by your Arkham Asylum purchase, you don’t mind SecuROM either. ;)

    • Jad says:

      GFWL is indeed terrible, but not an automatic write off (Ubisoft) for me. If the game is good enough I’ll put up with it (Arkham Asylum, DOW2)

      I want to quote this again, as it is my opinion as well. I’ve got a couple of GWF/L games, Batman, SFIV, Gears 1, Fallout 3, and its worth it if the game is good enough. Just remember to set your profile to “offline” when starting the game up.

      It’s not that much different from Steam, for singleplayer titles at least — it’s still a DRM wrapper. Way too many gamers give Steam a pass for things they howl bloody murder at GFWL for.

    • Chris D says:


      To be honest I didn’t even notice the securom, but if I had it had it might have put me off a borderline purchase but not off something I really want.

      I can appreciate if you want to make it a point of priciple. “I bought the game therefore i should own it”. In practice, though, there aren’t that many games I want to return to multiple times. I’ll play something to death when I get it. I might return to it later onif it was good but it’s a small list that I want to go back to a third time or more.

    • sassy says:

      GFWL is horrid. You can put up with it but definately shouldn’t have to. This however is different, this isn’t GFWL we are talking about but the GFWL store. Which no matter how good a deal is I won’t be touching that store (so I missed out on prince of persia last week T_T).

  8. Zogtee says:

    I’d buy this on Steam, you know, the biggest digital delivery system we got. I don’t want to soil my PC with GFWL.

  9. Urthman says:

    For some reason this reminds of that period of third-person action games that appeared in the time just after the first two Tomb Raider games.

    You mean games like Legacy of Kain and Omikron? If only.

    Or did you mean Ultima 9?

    • bwion says:

      What are you talking about? There was never an Ultima 9…

      Dammit. So much for all that therapy.

  10. Ybfelix says:

    I love the feeling of setting and time period…

    My problem with Fable is its somewhat blandness, it’s “just” a hack and slash action adventure, doesn’t have a distinctive feature to stand out, except silly emotion and a very unnatural reputation system.

  11. Alphabet says:

    It’s not GFWL that will prevent me from buying this; it’s how infantile, repetitive, and poorly-imagined Fable 2 was.

  12. Wulf says:

    It’s pretty aesthetically, that’s for sure, but it also looks like a ploddingly generic fairytale, which is what everyone wants, I suppose. So I may pass.

    It also admits one of the cardinal sins of gaming: stupid AI. Nothing dates a game like stupid AI. In reality, a pack of wolves would not attack an well-armed armoured bloke, not in a million, but unlike the real deal, the AI is stupid, so it throws itself at whatever isn’t an NPC, ignoring nearby prey which would be far easier to hunt. Stuff like that is massively immersion-breaking for me. It was in Oblivion too, and I’m glad that a fan made a mod to fix that with far, far more realistic animal behaviour.

    I’m just not expecting anything special from this, there’s nothing amazing, superlative, brilliant, unique, innovative, shining, or fantastic about it, it just… is. But then, I think perhaps it’s not meant for people like me. So I’ll shut up. Sorry.

    • BeamSplashX says:

      I think you’re going a little far. Good AI is not the same as realistic behavior per species. I can see it ruining immersion in Oblivion, but I think Fable is a bit more abstract of a world than that.

    • Wulf says:

      “I think you’re going a little far.”

      That or I just want better AI in games, since AI is so frequently ignored in favour of shiny graphics. Fable has shiny graphics and shit AI, it’s known for it. Even Fable I, my favourite Fable, had shit AI. Remember the policemen that would ignore that you were robbing people blind if you said a nice word to them?

      “Good AI is not the same as realistic behavior per species.”

      What?! Of course it is! What on Earth would make you think it isn’t?

      I mean, there were many mods for Oblivion made because ‘the AI is bad’. Seriously, look up all the mods, they’re all considered AI mods. They make monsters behave more intelligent in combat, and they also make their behaviour more realistic. All of this falls into the realm of AI.

      How something behaves when you’re not interacting with it is AI.
      How something behaves when you are interacting with it is AI.

      What you’re saying is that how something behaves when you’re not interacting with it isn’t AI. That’s ridiculous, I’m sorry, it’s patently absurd, and not in the good way I like, either, but more in that irritating baseless one.

      Therefore, if you see a peasant walking repeatedly into a wall when you’re not interacting with them, that’s bad AI and it’s immersion breaking. I mean, sure, you could argue that that’s normal behaviour for them, but that’s just a bit stupid, really.

      I honestly hope you see what I’m getting at, here. :p

      “I can see it ruining immersion in Oblivion, […]”

      It is. Here I am, armoured man riding around on an armoured horsey, with a very big sword, wielding deadly magicks… and I’m attacked by wolves. That’s just as bad as the peasant walking repeatedly into a wall. What the wolf should be doing is hunting prey it can actually manage to kill. That way, I’d just watch in a pleased sort of way, happy that the programmers cared to implement good AI.

      “[…] but I think Fable is a bit more abstract of a world than that.”

      So because Fable is Fable, because Fable is not Oblivion, Fable gets a free pass?


      I know about abstract, me boyo. If you’ve been following my posts around RPS, I’m a master of abstract, absurdity, and silliness. But the thing is is that having a weak, woodland animal attacking a well-armed armoured guy isn’t abstract (that’s a lie, sorry, a bald-faced lie), it isn’t even a particularly good sort of absurd, it’s just stupid.

      So you’re asking me to celebrate stupidity.

      I can celebrate a lot of things. I can celebrate life, I can celebrate fun, I can celebrate innovative ideas, I can celebrate brilliance, I can celebrate good ideas, I can celebrate sublime writing, but I cannot celebrate stupidity.

      And “oh, stupidity is fine because it’s Fable!” is no excuse. I’m sorry.

      Stupid AI is stupid AI.

      It’s bad in Oblivion, and it’s bad in Fable, and it’s a cheap excuse to give the hero something to fight. It’s the “Oh, hey, we’re too lazy to create new assets for our hero’s foes, so we’ll just make all of our existing assets hostile to him, even where it doesn’t really make sense, and that’ll do it!” lazy approach. It feels lazy, sloppy, and yes, stupid.

      I mean, today it’s wolves, what next? Random bears out of nowhere? Squirrels? Rabbits? :p

      I really hope you can understand my point, here.

      I mean, it’s this sort of laziness we need to protest from the outset, if we don’t, then lazy developers will simply get more lazy. This is why Fable is generic pap, compared to say, Morrowind, which isn’t. It’s generic pap because it falls into every old, bad PC RPG trap that ever was. It’s boring, it’s dull, it’s generic, it has bad AI, everything that isn’t the hero or a human bystander gasping at the hero must be some hostile thing for the hero to defeat, it all feels incredibly artificial and shit.

      If they weren’t lazy, they’d use wolves and other animals to create a living world around the player, and then give the player relevant, and intelligent foes to fight.

      How are wolves that leap onto the hero’s sword anything other than lazy?

      So yes, Fable is generic pap that suffers every problem that every old PC RPG has, all these problems that more modern RPGs have moved beyond.

      That’s why I said that the game wasn’t for me, if you didn’t notice. :p

      I do understand that some people like generic fantasy settings filled with irrelevant foes who are too stupid to fight them properly, or to know how to avoid fighting, but that stupidity is immersion breaking for me. I want devs to put in more effort than that, I want them to be less lazy, and no, they don’t get a free pass on it just because omigosh Fable is Fable.

    • drache64 says:

      There is ONE major flaw in your argument wulf

      “How are wolves that leap onto the hero’s sword anything other than lazy?”

      I would call them Suicidal.

  13. malkav11 says:

    I liked Fable okay. Fable II is arguably an improvement but hasn’t held my attention. Can’t say as I’ll be rushing out day one for #3.

  14. shakuuro says:

    Hi need to know mor