Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FABLE is comeing to PC

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:26:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Is the big console hit rpg FABLE due soon for the PC ????
Will it be any good ???
luv mouse
@@@@@@

More about : fable comeing

Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:26:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

This seems interesting. People seem to complain that the game (on
console) doesn't live up to the hype but it's a fairly good game. I
would think that someone who hasn't seen and doesn't care about the
hype (promises of what should be in the game) such as myself should
just enjoy it as it is (whatever that is).
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:45:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Trimble Bracegirdle" <NOspam@spam.not> once tried to test me with:

> Is the big console hit rpg FABLE due soon for the PC ????
> Will it be any good ???

Fall release. It's decent but it's not world-changing. There's a few new
things in it that few or no RPG has done yet, but it's nowhere near as
revolutionary as the original design specs.


--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:26:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

It's an ok but, in a way, unfinished game. Not unfinished as in buggy,
but as in you can see there were supposed to be a lot more features
that ended up being not implemented.
One of my pet peeves is that of love/relationship/marriage/house thing.
There were all sorts of things related to this, but in the end it felt
underdeveloped. You can marry as many people as you want, even
neighbors if you want, buy a house, etc. But it suddenly stops there.
You go to your 'wife' (or one of them) and you don't get anything new,
maybe once in a while she gives you a random piece of armor or
something.
I played in Xbox once, but will not play the PC version, there's just
no replayability in this title
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:22:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 14 Jul 2005 22:45:25 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:


>Fall release. It's decent but it's not world-changing. There's a few new
>things in it that few or no RPG has done yet, but it's nowhere near as
>revolutionary as the original design specs.

I think I'll pass on this one. I just picked up Guild Wars and it's a
blast. Is there anything Fable offers that Guild Wars doesn't?
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:51:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Trimble Bracegirdle" <NOspam@spam.not> wrote in message
news:42d6ca72$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Is the big console hit rpg FABLE due soon for the PC ????
> Will it be any good ???
> luv mouse
> @@@@@@

It had lovely production values on the Xbox. A great, high-quality game
that had nothing really wrong with it, other than it was very, very short.
I really dragged things out and I finished at about 11hrs, which is hella
short for an RPG. A lot of people only got 8hrs out of it. The PC version
inlcludes an "expansion" which adds about a third as much content all round,
so it's not suddenly going to transform the game into a BG2-sized epic, but
should take some of the sting out of there not being all that much to it.

A good game, but be prepared to feel like it didn't provide much value for
money!
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:02:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"NFLed" <NFLed@aol.com> wrote:
>This seems interesting. People seem to complain that the game (on
>console) doesn't live up to the hype

They're just people who forgot to include the Peter Molyneux Hype
Multiplier in their equations.

>but it's a fairly good game. I
>would think that someone who hasn't seen and doesn't care about the
>hype (promises of what should be in the game) such as myself should
>just enjoy it as it is (whatever that is).
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 3:34:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

saint <saint@comcast.com> once tried to test me with:

> On 14 Jul 2005 22:45:25 GMT, Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fall release. It's decent but it's not world-changing. There's a few new
>>things in it that few or no RPG has done yet, but it's nowhere near as
>>revolutionary as the original design specs.
>
> I think I'll pass on this one. I just picked up Guild Wars and it's a
> blast. Is there anything Fable offers that Guild Wars doesn't?

It's like apples and oranges. Fable is a single player story oriented game,
Guild Wars is quake with spells.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 6:53:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:

>It's like apples and oranges. Fable is a single player story oriented game,
>Guild Wars is quake with spells.

As an old quake player and presen guildwars player I can say with 100%
certainty there is nothing whatsoever quake about guildwars.
Unfortunately. That would doubtless have made the PvP more
interesting.

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:53:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

wolfing wrote:
> It's an ok but, in a way, unfinished game. Not unfinished as in
> buggy, but as in you can see there were supposed to be a lot more
> features that ended up being not implemented.
> One of my pet peeves is that of love/relationship/marriage/house
> thing. There were all sorts of things related to this, but in the end
> it felt underdeveloped. You can marry as many people as you want,
> even neighbors if you want, buy a house, etc. But it suddenly stops
> there. You go to your 'wife' (or one of them) and you don't get
> anything new, maybe once in a while she gives you a random piece of
> armor or something.

Yeah. I remember reading before how you were supposed to be able to have
kids, and then you would be able to watch the kids progress and age during
the course of the game. One of the many interesting features that they
scrapped.


--
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 2:35:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121433991.637398.136150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It's an ok but, in a way, unfinished game. Not unfinished as in buggy,
> but as in you can see there were supposed to be a lot more features
> that ended up being not implemented.
> One of my pet peeves is that of love/relationship/marriage/house thing.
> There were all sorts of things related to this, but in the end it felt
> underdeveloped. You can marry as many people as you want, even



oh that's interesting...maybe I'll get this one and set my target to "Marry
all young single female NPC in the game" lol...




> neighbors if you want, buy a house, etc. But it suddenly stops there.
> You go to your 'wife' (or one of them) and you don't get anything new,
> maybe once in a while she gives you a random piece of armor or
> something.
> I played in Xbox once, but will not play the PC version, there's just
> no replayability in this title
>
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:35:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:

> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>It's like apples and oranges. Fable is a single player story oriented
>>game, Guild Wars is quake with spells.
>
> As an old quake player and presen guildwars player I can say with 100%
> certainty there is nothing whatsoever quake about guildwars.
> Unfortunately. That would doubtless have made the PvP more
> interesting.

I dunno, felt a lot like team deathmatch to me. Quake with spells instead
of guns.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 10:05:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

It's PvP, that's about the extent of similarity.... It's team based,
not individual based, so it's not standard deathmatch; it's not
eye-hand coordination based (e.g. you don't aim spells or arrows, or
perform combos like in fighting games, although you can move out of the
way of some spells) but based on taking the right selection of skills
into combat, and activating them at the right time based on various
timers.

The PvP is more like timed version of Magic the Gathering than Quake,
and to be honest I hate it, just like I hated Magic the Gathering. I'd
much have preferred it if it HAD been Counterstrike: Fantasy. In fact,
I'd have loved it.

I do like the PvE though; after >200 hours of gameplay I've finally
ascended my first character, through almost exclusively solo play!

I'm starting to tire now, but I definitely feel I've got my money's
worth!
July 18, 2005 3:32:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 17 Jul 2005 06:05:48 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk dared speak
in front of ME:

>It's PvP, that's about the extent of similarity.... It's team based,
>not individual based, so it's not standard deathmatch; it's not
>eye-hand coordination based (e.g. you don't aim spells or arrows, or
>perform combos like in fighting games, although you can move out of the
>way of some spells) but based on taking the right selection of skills
>into combat, and activating them at the right time based on various
>timers.
>
>The PvP is more like timed version of Magic the Gathering than Quake,
>and to be honest I hate it, just like I hated Magic the Gathering. I'd
>much have preferred it if it HAD been Counterstrike: Fantasy. In fact,
>I'd have loved it.

What, you prefer twitch to strategy?

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 2:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
July 18, 2005 4:56:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-07-16, Dirty Redpool <dirtredpooll@something.something> wrote:
> wolfing wrote:
>> It's an ok but, in a way, unfinished game. Not unfinished as in
>> buggy, but as in you can see there were supposed to be a lot more
>> features that ended up being not implemented.
>> One of my pet peeves is that of love/relationship/marriage/house
>> thing. There were all sorts of things related to this, but in the end
>> it felt underdeveloped. You can marry as many people as you want,
>> even neighbors if you want, buy a house, etc. But it suddenly stops
>> there. You go to your 'wife' (or one of them) and you don't get
>> anything new, maybe once in a while she gives you a random piece of
>> armor or something.
>
> Yeah. I remember reading before how you were supposed to be able to have
> kids, and then you would be able to watch the kids progress and age during
> the course of the game. One of the many interesting features that they
> scrapped.

What is interesting about this feature? These aren't design
decisions that affect the game. This is just eye candy.
July 18, 2005 6:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 18 Jul 2005 10:52:03 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk dared speak
in front of ME:

>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.

You didn't leave any context. Were you responding to me, an article
that hasn't shown up on my newsfeed yet, or just rambling
incoherently?

Presuming you were talking to me: what does hand-eye coordination
have to do with tactics?
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
July 18, 2005 9:59:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:43:23 -0500, Michael Cecil
<macecil@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>On 18 Jul 2005 10:52:03 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
>
>Pffft. I prefer CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.

I prefer möebius arguments.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:26:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:59:21 -0600, Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:43:23 -0500, Michael Cecil
><macecil@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>On 18 Jul 2005 10:52:03 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
>>
>>Pffft. I prefer CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.
>
>I prefer möebius arguments.

That's the kind where you talk to yourself and it lasts forever? Good
choice - you'll always win but it will take a while.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
July 19, 2005 3:17:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:26:35 -0500, Michael Cecil
<macecil@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:59:21 -0600, Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:43:23 -0500, Michael Cecil
>><macecil@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>>>On 18 Jul 2005 10:52:03 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
>>>
>>>Pffft. I prefer CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.
>>
>>I prefer möebius arguments.
>
>That's the kind where you talk to yourself and it lasts forever? Good
>choice - you'll always win but it will take a while.

On the plus side, I know I'm not dealing with someone I'll find too
stupid to live.
On the down side, I won't learn anything I didn't already know.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 4:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:43:23 -0500, Michael Cecil
<macecil@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 18 Jul 2005 10:52:03 -0700, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
>
>Pffft. I prefer CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS.

I prefer circular saws.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> Spake Unto All:

>>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
>
>You didn't leave any context. Were you responding to me, an article
>that hasn't shown up on my newsfeed yet, or just rambling
>incoherently?

You. Get a threaded newsreader.

>Presuming you were talking to me: what does hand-eye coordination
>have to do with tactics?

Using cover, outflanking, improvising, anticipating enemy movement,
rushing - that's what you have in FPS, that's what I'm good at and
like, that's tactics. That you're no good at it doesn't change that.

Planning the combat beforehand, so that the combat is 95% decided
before it's even started, that's strategy, that's what you have in
Magic the Gathering (although MtG is probably 90% luck 10% strategy),
any game with the word "manager" in it, and Guildwars PvP. And it
bores the hell out of me.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:17:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> looked up from reading
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:

>Thusly Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
>>
>>You didn't leave any context. Were you responding to me, an article
>>that hasn't shown up on my newsfeed yet, or just rambling
>>incoherently?
>
>You. Get a threaded newsreader.

Uh M_C, agent IS a threaded newsreader.
It can't show posts that aren't in the newsfeed though.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:
> On 2005-07-16, Dirty Redpool <dirtredpooll@something.something> wrote:
>> wolfing wrote:
>>> It's an ok but, in a way, unfinished game. Not unfinished as in
>>> buggy, but as in you can see there were supposed to be a lot more
>>> features that ended up being not implemented.
>>> One of my pet peeves is that of love/relationship/marriage/house
>>> thing. There were all sorts of things related to this, but in the
>>> end it felt underdeveloped. You can marry as many people as you
>>> want, even neighbors if you want, buy a house, etc. But it
>>> suddenly stops there. You go to your 'wife' (or one of them) and
>>> you don't get anything new, maybe once in a while she gives you a
>>> random piece of armor or something.
>>
>> Yeah. I remember reading before how you were supposed to be able to
>> have kids, and then you would be able to watch the kids progress and
>> age during the course of the game. One of the many interesting
>> features that they scrapped.
>
> What is interesting about this feature? These aren't design
> decisions that affect the game. This is just eye candy.

It is a feature because it makes the world come to life more. If characters
age and grow it adds to the immersion of Fable which it seemed they were
really trying to make into a living world. And like I said, it was an
INTERESTING feature, not a feature that really affected the game's
playability.

--
!