FABLE is comeing to PC

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
@@@@@@
24 answers Last reply
More about fable comeing
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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?
  5. 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!
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.


    --
  10. 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
    >
  11. 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.
  12. 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!
  13. 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<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    In a way, yes: I prefer TACTICS to strategy.
  15. 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.
  16. 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<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    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.

    --
    Michael Cecil
    http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
    http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
  18. 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<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  19. 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/
  20. 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<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  21. 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 !
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.

    --
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Consoles Games IBM RPG Video Games