Related: One of the main designers of Fable recently released a free, highly imaginative Ultima-4-inspired game called Moonring. Check it out!
And if you like this sort of tasteful take on retro RPGs, you might enjoy SKALD:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1069160/SKALD_Against_the...
You had me a "Ultima-4 inspired game" :)
It's free, it plays like Ultima 4 but modern (nice colors, animations, more than 26 possible actions :) ). I think I'm in love.
Thank you for posting this!
nice, I saw this game somewhere recently but didn't realize it was free. "Verified" on Deck , too! thanks for recommending, will give it a shot!
Looks fantastic indeed. I tried running it on Steam deck but I wouldn't call it supported. The default layout configuration is not working, only touchscreen.
[flagged]
A decent game that isn't worth a price of admission that is $0? Am I missing something?
Even free games have an opportunity cost, or do you have unlimited time and energy to spend on playing games? Not that I'm saying Moonring isn't worth it, but just because something is free doesn't mean it's free of critique or evaluation of quality.
I just have a hard time reconciling how one could describe a game as "decent" but also hold the opinion that it isn't worth the time spent playing it, but I guess we just use that word differently.
I had a review for an Android game that was something along the lines of "It's a great game, but not worth $1"
I mean, I wasn't the guy who you replied to initially. I don't know. I'm just saying that just because it's free doesn't mean it's worth the time and energy. There are countless excellent games that one could be playing, at any number of price points. There are a lot of games I wouldn't even play for free when I could be playing those games.
Yeah. But I’ve got to admit: they nailed the problem with videogame review subjectivity in record few words.
Time is money. It's fairly easy to attribute a dollar value too, like minimum wage or your own wage/salary.
If you spend an hour playing a free game but it wasn't worth your while, that doesn't mean the game being free beer excuses it.
Fine, but then by what measure is the game "decent" if it wasn't worth your while?
Time is not money, unless you were going to be paid for that time otherwise.
If you are working for someone, you are selling your time for money. Time is money.
If you use your time to make and sell something, you made money. Time is money.
If you have money, you can spend it to buy someone's time and have him do something for you. Time is money.
You can spend money to buy more time now, you can spend time to get money for buying time tomorrow.
Time is money, money is time.
okay, but now plot it out when the example human has greater than 0% idle time.
strive as we might , none of us are 100% effective at converting time into money.
I agree with the greater point that money is important and that time is even more so. I don't agree on them being of equal 'value' by a long shot. A human doesn't need money to be happy, but time..
There in an opportunity cost in playing free games, but I wouldn't consider any considerable opportunity cost to have been incurred at the time of "admission".
The opportunity cost is when playing the game. I'm just saying that free doesn't make up for a bad (or necessarily even a decent) game, if it is one. There's an incredible number of amazing games out there. I personally find it difficult to justify using my time on even decent games regardless of price when there are better games out there.
I completely understand the point of your comment. My comment was on how yours was only tangential to the wording of the parent comment, which used the wording price of "admission". No-one is obliged to finish a game that they started, and the admission price to this particular game is nothing given that it's free, so there will not necessarily need to be any opportunity cost.
The developer is giving the game away for free.
I have such fond memories of Dungeon Keeper, Dungeon Keeper 2, Fable, Black & White, Populous.
I think the biggest take away from Molyneux's work is regardless of how seriously he talked the games up, the games themselves never once took themselves too seriously. There was a level of playful whimsy that just didn't exist back then (and probably still doesn't today). You could tell he wanted to say more and do more, but was always limited by the technology available at the time. It felt like he was searching for something in the games he developed, and I was always happy to go searching with him.
Populous! That's a name I haven't heard for a long time. It was so much fun building out the land, smiting people, and then saving the day after earthquakes, etc. Good times.
I have yet to see a modern version that was half as interesting.
I’ve never understood the people who took him at face value but I’ve also never understood people who didn’t like the guy.
He made some of the most interesting and original and fun games out there. What, he can’t puff up his chest once in awhile? If anything I want more games from him.
I don't like people that lie to me.
When it's vicious and cunning, sure. But the guy's pathological, and still extremely endearing despite that.
I had a high school friend who was lying all the time. His father had access to unheard of cpu prototypes and whatever else. We nicknamed him "C. The Mythomaniac" and called out his bullshit everyday.
He was a really great friend.
I wouldn't like your friend either.
was your friend selling videogames to millions of people on the back of these lies?
1) Most of these games are really great
2) As with us and our friend, many gamers knew Molyneux for exactly who he is, and thus moderated their expectations accordingly.
I don't think people started really disliking him until Curiosity and Godus. And IMO neither of those are good games.
He also promised the winner of Curiosity 1% of all revenue from Godus, then retconned the deal to be 1% of profit after the game failed to become profitable.
Actually it was reconned to 1% of the profit after they implemented a specific feature which they then never implemented. It was just a massive PR scam.
#2 is a weak argument, a lot more gamers didn't know him and moderated their expectations based on the marketing
Of course, I am not exactly excusing him. But as customer you should also not trust advertisement blindly, especially when it is pie in the sky too good to be true. Most reviews of the time would not miss the opportunity to joke about Molyneux's serial overpromising. It was a running gag before long.
> I am not exactly excusing him.
> But as customer you should also not trust advertisement blindly
That’s and excuse for his lies. As a customer you should be able to trust adverticement, that’s why we have laws for adverticements. Blaming people who believe in a scam artists lies for having believed them is madness. The fact that he made games you like doesn’t excuse his blatant lies to investors and customers alike, and you really should listen to yourself and stop making excuses for him.
Did his uncle work at Nintendo?
Why was this exact situation so common in the 90s - why did every friend group have a person who lied about an uncle working at specifically Nintendo?
Video games are lies, zeroes and ones masquerading as worlds and people; imbued with meaning by the power of dreams and dreamers
That's like saying sound is a lie, because it's just a vibration propagating a wave.
Video games are simply artistic creations meant to entertain, as are other forms of entertainment media. Were you formerly under the impression that video games were a portal to another reality?
this is intentionally missing the point
Huh, what this whole article actually led me to find is that the winner of Curiosity never actually got any price. The price they were supposed to get was never even developed. I guess that’s some way to get out of your contractual agreements. Wonder how that would have gone for them if the winner wasn’t a clueless 18 year old.
(for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity%3A_What's_Inside_the... )
Ugh the wiki says ‘1% of all revenue of Godus’ and then Peter remarks it ‘never made a profit’. Bait and switch there
Well, maybe it didn't make a profit, but it still had revenues...
Exactly. But 0$ was paid out ‘as there was no profit’
One of my favorite things in game journalism is still Rock Paper Shotgun kicking off an interview with Peter Molyneux by asking him if he's a pathological liar.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/peter-molyneux-interview-go...
It’s just hard to read. Clearly he can make amazing games given constraints, but… It feels like there’s always an excuse for not doing as promised, and only trying to justify things in hindsight.
I guess all problems could be solved by just having him work on the game, and leaving PR to literally anyone else. Hell, the janitor would be a safer bet.
Peter Molyneux is the king of bullshit. He's back again with another God game.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/08/peter-molyneux-is-bac...
He's a dreamer who won't shut up. Nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is bullshit hype.
I think Peter put into the right environment and restraints could still be a great thing. I really dislike the cancelling that's in a lot of gaming discussions for any personality that doesn't tell people what they want to hear, or fucks up so they can be cast as a villain (OTOH, I think many gamers just like drama, they love a redemption story too).
To my mind games should encourage the interesting, fantastical and weird "What if you could..." elements, and that's what Molyneux/Bullfrog/Lionhead have introduced repeatedly over the years. Developers like him should be prolific and encouraged as I'd really hate to see the breadth of gaming reduced and more focus on safe derivatives of a few genres. I'd love to hear him shoot the breeze on games and what others have produced, but he could only ever do it under a false name as his own carries too much baggage.
This isn't cancellation, this is fair warning. Molyneux has an extremely well documented pattern of outright lying about his projects. He's told what are in retrospect outrageous lies about every single game he's worked on for decades. And he admits "exaggerating" afterwards and asks for forgiveness, and then goes and does the exact same thing to build hype for his next game.
This isn't a case of "we were too ambitious and had to cut things." This is a case of repeatedly promising outlandishly ambitious things in press appearances which were never on any internal development roadmaps.
If it's so well known that he lies about his games, I'd say at this point any gamer that is disappointed that one of his games isn't what he said it would be has only themselves to blame.
I couldn't agree more. Just like Chris Roberts, Peter Molyneux is someone you absolutely want as an influential part of the design team, but never in charge of the project.
I agree 100%. My comment was extremely harsh but to my defence he has even apologies for his over zealous comments.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/masters-of-albion/peter-molyneux-ne...
My comment was not about his games though. It was a a strong suggestion to ignroe all his bullshit and wait for the game.
Fable is great if you ignore all his antics. All his games are ground breaking in one way or another. Just don't listen to his bs.
No thank you.
I still remember the disappointment I felt 30 mins into Fable. Same story with bunch of other of his games.
Can't relate. I've enjoyed every single one of his games.
Looks kinda fun. Basically Dungeon Keeper / Populous with better graphics.
At least this time there is no kickstarter/presale/NFT
Only because last time there was.
So would you say you're a fan of Peter?
I'm a huge fan of the games he has been a part of so I was familiar enough with his antics to know that Curiosity would end up being nothing, but he really outdid himself here, Peak Peter Molyneux behavior.
Yeah i lost all faith when he did this shit. But he made it even lower with his NFT game
I vaguely recall playing Fable on the Xbox and being satisfied, though not blown away by it. It was certainly one of the most fleshed-out house-buying/marriage-allowing games I recall playing (not the first, though) and probably paved the way for more complete systems.
I love Peter Molyneux and he's built amazing things, but he is certainly a hype factory.
I absolutely loved that game on Xbox. It's the only reason I own an original Xbox.
It came out when I was just branching out into the world without my family around, and seeing a game where my choices changed my appearance was kind blowing to me.
I still love this game, though the replayability was definitely overhyped. It's pretty much the same every time.
Yeah, I got the Xbox for Halo 2, but Fable was an absolute top highlight as well. Those two games and Morrowind made up the vast vast majority of my hours on that console. Great times :)
I remember the house buying as being very basic. You could buy a house, fill it with items, sell the house, steal all the items from it, and buy it back for less, as many times as you like. I also remember being rather frustrated I couldn’t pull the sword out of the stone by becoming max good, to I gave up and became max evil, much to the disappointment of my character’s wife.
I maxed out the fireball spell, then targeted it at the stone walls of a building to let the splash damage murder the residents without alerting the guards or accumulating evil points. Great way to open new properties on the rental market.
That was based on strength, nothing to do with good/evil lol.
Yeah I just googled it when I posted that comment. How disappointingly stupid.
As an early teen I didn't understand enough to be impressed, but I was certainly fascinated for a good few weeks.
One of my favorite franchises, and although I would love to see a new Fable game come out, I fear I'd wind up with a Saints game. Completely disconnected from the original game. Ridiculous.
Just looked up Saints Row reboot again, it flopped so hard that they shutdown the studio behind it, making the game literal abandon-ware. Yikes.
Fable 3 killed Lionhead.
The reboot has already passed the point of teaser trailers. The new studio is Playground Games best known for the Forza Horizon games. (The alternating "silly" open world titles between Forza Motorsport "serious" racing titles.) Given the success of Forza Horizon and their cadence at regularly delivering it, this Fable reboot probably won't kill the studio, but might push them back into the "only do Horizon games, please" box.
The Saints Row reboot had some writing on the wall that it might be the last one from the developer anyway, and it was reflected in the design. The Chicago-based Volition (for several decades under several publishers, and even through a messy divorce/remerger) was forced to move to Austin, TX to be closer physically to other teams under the same publisher (notably Gearbox). The reboot attempted to be a love letter to their new forced home, but a lot of "their creative heart wasn't exactly in it" was visible on too many levels, and it was easy enough to guess that when a publisher forces a move like that they may be looking for easy layoffs and eventual team mergers.
There is a new Fable coming out in 2025.
Which is exactly why this fluff article has appeared in the Guardian.
I bought an xbox only for fable 3. But that one disillusioned me complelty :|
I really hope they take the feeling of Fable (that what made me like it in the first place) and roll with it.
And if they make it great, It was Peter Molyneux fault...
Boo to associating Britain with heroic failure. We do this too much to ourselves! Actually, British game development industry is a notable success and has turned Leamington Spa from a byword for chintziness to an exciting place to work.
True enough, way beyond my old-school favs of Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, and GTA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_companies_...
>Boo to associating Britain with heroic failure
Not sure which part of it is a failure. Even the articles said > it was successful enough that Lionhead was bought by Microsoft in 2006, and its two sequels also sold well.
Bullfrog, Rockstar North, Climax, 4J, Rocksteady
Hello Games - No Man's Sky
And one that probably few here have heard of: Lapioware - Diesel Railcar Simulator
Mentioning that one because it's a one man show. Made by a man who felt nostalgic for the diesel railcars & landscapes of 1960s Britain. So he ended up making one of the most realistic train sims.
Some more to add—
- Revolution Software (Broken Sword series)
- Fireproof Games (The Room series)
- Jagex (RuneScape)
- Core Design (Tomb Raider)
- Dovetail Games (Rail and Train Simulator*)
The Elite: Dangerous studio?
Frontier, Cloud Imperium Games, Free Radical / Crytek UK / Dambuster, Ninja Theory, Playground Games
I mean, GTA is one of the biggest game franchises on the planet, which is hard to see as anything other than a success. Gouranga!
I'm so glad I didn't hang around in video game forums & news sites and got to experience Fable in its pristine form.
It's a beautiful game with a great environmental quality to it, much like classic World of Warcraft and Skyrim. Simply roaming around, taking in the visuals, the music, and the ambience was an enjoyable experience in itself, without even doing the quests or progressing the story.
Whenever I read about it now, it's just a bunch of people complaining about how overhyped it was and how their own expectations prevented them from enjoying the game. Sad!
This, so very much. Nowadays I go to great lengths to avoid reading any reviews or opinions on media I want to consume. Regardless of whether it is a book, movie, tv show or game.
I ask my partner to order books for me or to check what other entries are in a series because it is basically impossible to look up something like this without being jumped with summaries, ratings, opinions and similar that rob one of an unbiased experience.
I'll always remember the 2017 "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" movie. I watched it at the movies with zero expectations and thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was great. Much later I read some article or something on it and apparently people agreed it was terrible. I don't think I would have enjoyed it nearly as much if I had heard about it beforehand.
Fable was a game that was hyped up far beyond what it delivered or even what was possible at the time. It was entertaining but sort of just an above average game. Not an amazing game, not a legendary game. For some reason there was a lot of games journalism at the time that propped up the image of people like Peter Molyneux, maybe because of Black and White. In the end gamers didn’t get what they expected.
I still remember chowing down on crunchy chicks to qualify for the evil quest lines >:)
It's the bones that make them crunchy
Chicken chaser, do you chase chickens?
IIRC, II was considered superior, where a lot of the ideas were supposed to have matured and gelled to create a compelling experience. I didn't own a 360, so I never got to see for myself, but I did get to watch a few hours of gameplay while hanging out with my boyfriend at the time.
A notable moment: he'd unlocked a Demon Door and was enthusiastically laying out how the game's real estate system worked, and his plans for the idyllic winter lodge he'd just found, when he walked his character inside and... well, I won't spoil the surprise. Suffice it to say, someone on the design team had a very good handle on what they were doing. It's always stuck out to me as an excellent example of how deeply game designers understand their systems, how those systems influence gamer behavior and expectations, and how to play on those expectations for emotional impact.
(You should probably spoil the surprise, because few of the readers of your comment are going to track down & buy a 16-year-old RPG, and spend the necessary 10 or 40 hours to reach that point and learn what the surprise is and how it illustrates anything of interest about the Fable games.)
This goes into what happens: https://fable.fandom.com/wiki/Winter_Lodge
Found a video, it's a minor jump-scare when the player enters the front door.
I feel like that's a bit reductive. The jump-scare is only effective because of the expectations set by previous experience. As the wiki article mentions, it at first seems like a winter version of https://fable.fandom.com/wiki/Serenity_Farm. Once the illusion is broken and you begin to leave the area, you're forced to pass by and see how all of the cozy elements that built your initial impression were transformed. And then, of course, nothing is explained; you're just left to ponder what happened. Describing it, or even seeing it divorced from some amount of contextualizing gameplay, doesn't quite convey the quale of the moment. It sobered us up in a way that I can best compare to the feeling of walking out of the atomic bomb museum in Nagasaki.
I appreciate when games are confident enough to play these sorts of tricks with players. I'm also reminded of the Pitioss Ruins in Final Fantasy XV, a secret dungeon that also messes with player expectations and emotions by using your understanding of the game's mechanics against you, while also using the environment as a monumental storytelling device (in this case, your journey through the ruins serving as a metaphor for the game world's lore).
In that era of gaming, just waiting a few years meant sequels were better just due to extra computing power, so yes, Fable II was better in most ways (although I'd argue the main story was worse). It was still trying to define many gameplay mechanics that are just standard fare for western made action RPGs. One can play Fable and Morrowind, then look at Skyrim, and see how it owes about as much to Fable as to Morrowind.
It's harder now, because so much of the genre seems to have frozen. The graphics are many times more realistic, and animation blending has come a long way. But ultimately making changes is now so much more expensive, that significant novelty is difficult to find in games that also push what could be done, the way it was back when the first two Fable games could try to push ahead in all direction at once
I think Baldur's Gate is as much to blame for this - that was really the origin of these high-touch, narrative-driven, asset-heavy games, especially with voice acting. It completely demolished the keyword based interactions of the Ultima and Wizardry games, almost completely removed wilderness exploration as an option in RPGs, and turned them into very curated experiences. As much fun as Morrowind was, it was still a disappointment to me coming after the vast sandboxes of Arena and Daggerfall.
It's more Baldur's Gate 2 that's to blame. The original still has plenty of wilderness exploration, and while the main quest is linear, there's no real urgency to following it. You need to pay attention to figure out what to do next, and it's possible to go the wrong way and wander into encounters much too difficult for your character. The NPCs are lightly characterized archetypes with minimal dialogue and no romances. I think the original Baldur's Gate still retains the spirit of the older style of RPG.
But BG2 is actually a bigger game IMO - yes, in BG1 there are a lot of areas where you can just wander and explore, enjoy the game atmosphere; there are only enemies, sometimes a simple quest, or a cave, etc. - but in BG2 while there are fewer areas, there usually have a lot of content, so you spend more game time in them.
I'm disappointed in rpg's now. Once oblivion came out, they all seemed to stagnate and just be clones of that model.
The problem is the market for a deep, deep rpg with skills based on time spent using them is probably pretty small. Because it's people like me who don't actually have the time needed to play them due to life nonsense.
I desperately want the mechanics of Morrowind, but with modern graphics. The original is almost unplayable because of how crappy the graphics are.
> I desperately want the mechanics of Morrowind, but with modern graphics. The original is almost unplayable because of how crappy the graphics are.
OpenMW exists: https://openmw.org/
Awesome. Thank you.
Check out the Skywind project. It’s a shame it’s not a new game but will hopefully fill that void for a bit (when it gets released…)
I've watched skywind with anticipation for quite a while now.
Oblivion and Skyrim were good games but I miss the amount of grit and world building of the old Black Isle Studios games.
I liked Fable 2 well enough, but I think that the first game was far superior. The story is pretty interesting in the first game (if basic), whereas in 2 I felt it was kind of a mess.
Molyneux is obviously infamous for over promises and under delivering, but Fable (Fable, Fable The Lost Chapters, etc.) had such a special place in my heart.
An amazing game with raunchy wit, moving story, and great fantasy world building. The music still rattles through my brain and I still occasionally say, "Do you chase chickens, Chicken Chaser?".
I really enjoyed the games, but especially Fable and Fable TLC (which was an extended chapter at the end which changes the ending and takes you to a talked about continent that the base game did not).
Lionhead made amazing games, and it’s annoying that Molyneux had to hype them until they were certain disappointments.
I liked Fable, and while Black and White committed the sin of being two RTS games without multiplayer it remained really interesting and just a fun experience. But the game that really had me was The Movies. Its story mode was fun, but the movie maker within the game was really something different for a young teenager’s imagination. That is a game I’d really want to see rebuilt with modern tooling and hardware.
I loved The Movies, putting together weird campy films that I was proud of and received poor reviews from the in-game critics, heh.
I can still hear the excellent soundtrack in my head.
Black & White 1 does have multiplayer, only the sequel lacked it.
You had to beat level 1 and start level 2, and most people didn't because the anti-piracy was utterly brutal and would kick in at the transition from level 1 to 2, locking out even people who had legal copies.
(It would count any CD burning software being installed as meaning it was pirated, it also couldn't work properly on Windows 2000, and almost always detected as pirated on ANY NT kernel, most of the cracks didn't work either, since again you had to actually beat level 1 to find out if it thought you were a pirate, and a lot of crack teams didn't test that far)
The Guardian story misses out Louise Murray’s role in rescuing Fable
"Your health is low. Do you have any potions? Or food?"
I'm amazed when I see positive coverage of / nostalgia for Fable 1 for Xbox.
I was 15 at the time at the peak of Xbox vs Playstation vs Gamecube message board arguments on forums like NeoGAF.
And Molyneux's bullshit wasn't making it easy for us online Xbox crusaders. He made crazy claims like how it was an open world game with an advanced social system where you build relationships with people and can plant a seed and watch the tree grow if you were to wait next to it for many ingame hours. The lead up and hype made it part of gaming forum discourse for years!
Finally, Fable comes out and it's this short, easy, linear, arcadey, simplistic game. The super complicated reputation system was just a basic "you got +10 good/bad points" alignment system. "People remember your actions" just meant `if player.didThingX then cheer()`.
After all that, it was a weekend rental at best. I think I beat it in 8 hours. It was so disappointing.
After having not thought of Fable in 20 years, it's kinda funny to see it covered without the "gravity" of the waves it made in the Great Online Message Board Console Faction Wars. Not that the context was worth preserving nor that nobody should be allowed to enjoy it. It's funny because it was such a big deal to many of us forum crusaders.
But I guess that's part of getting old.
Eh, the fact it didn't live up to the promises was certaintly a massive part of the narrative, but I have a different memory. I remember most people finding it to be a masterpiece immediately. It got a 9.3 from IGN back when that still meant something after all. A lot of people don't care about length if what you get is as densely charming, well written, and well art designed as Fable.
Yeah, that's how I remember it.
The hype was basically "Morrowind but better in every single way" - better combat, deeper lore, complex character interactions, and more advanced graphics.
I got it day 1, and within about 2 days I gave up on it and sold it back. It was so much less than advertised I was immensely disappointed. I'm sure there was something good there if you went in with no expectations, but its easily the biggest gaming letdown I've experienced.
In the Swedish game magazine Super Play (now defunct) they covered Fable development and the release, but IIRC they advised the reader to take Molyneux's claims with a grain of salt. The final review still made it to 9, or 10 out of 10 I think, but I'd have to check the issue to confirm.
I want to thank my father for giving in and purchasing Fable for me when it hit the shelves. Fable II was my favourite, a fantastic game.
I assume by python-esque they meant monty python-esque (comedy-esque, versus python the programming language-esque), so remember to context switch, especially if you went to read the article from HN!
Indeed, paragraph 4:
>It was a bit like if Monty Python were to reimagine the world of Robin Hood.
Which they kinda did in time bandits
Yes, the title there really confused me for a moment.
Since we’ve brought up the question as to whether Molyneux is overly enthusiastic or just dishonest, I invite you to rewatch this 2009 demo and make up your own mind: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CPIbGnBQcJY&pp=ygUMUHJvamVjdCB...
Yes, this clinched it. He lied about features in all of the previous games (some of which were good, and I enjoyed), but the whole demo looks fake.
Wow, I can’t believe I missed this at the time. I knew he had a tendency to exaggerate but this makes me think he’s either delusional or a pathological liar.
My favorite aspect of Fable and one that few other games have touched for some reason is the fact that many quests asked you to choose between a moral solution and a moneymaking solution, which meant basically that only wealthy people could afford to be good. At the same time it let you invest in businesses and collect profits while you played the rest of the game, so that you could make some passive income basically. Rarely have I seen such a positive-capitalist-forward take on a game world, but the real lesson was the "need to be wealthy enough to be good" aspect
And also if I recall correctly you could raise the rent past all reasonable limits and collect evil points and degrade the health of the cities. But that was probably Fable 3 and/or 2. In 3, you also got to play as king in the court, after usurping the evil brother, and had to make evil decisions if you were poor enough, to prepare for that darkness thing in the desert. Contrasting with the authoritarian rule of the brother who was sort of just preparing for the bigger threat no one knew about.
That’s a pretty funny progression, from quests and arbitrage between traders in Fable 1, to a bigger focus on being a landlord than earlier in fable 2, then just straight up being a king in fable 3. Industralism progressing in the background of the three as well to full on childworker factories in fable 3 with Reaver if i recall correctly being the tycoon.
I only completed fable 1, not having a console, I believe (and then later, some nonsense about microsoft DRM no longer working? or something? or some microsoft service no longer existing? I forget), prevented me from experiencing/enjoying the other 2, but that certainly sounds interesting!
I remember playing one of these a decade or so after it came out. Found out there were hookers and a prompt on whether or not to have safe sex. Despite my attempts, I was unable to receive any penalties for ignoring the prompt.
I am excited and optimistic for the new game, but very aware of what an absolute train wreck the modern game industry (read: the execs and shareholders) is. I really, really, really want the new one to be good.
I enjoyed Fable so much that, yes, I will buy what ever game platform they release the 4th installment on just for that game
Sudeki was better. Long live SOL :)
... It always felt more French to me.