Liked the art design in Fable 2 much more... If they went for the bleak feehen it just set forward how weak the engine is, which was not so apparent in F2
Bowerstone
The main city of Bowerstone changed considerably from Fable II to Fable III. Take a gander at some of the differences.
190 comments
I just broke down and got fable 2 for the Xbox 360 i am tired of waiting for a PC release.
There is a notice amount of more dark and gloomy graphics in Fable III than Fable II, but it still has plenty of light, sunny landscapes with the typical amount of goofy British humor in the Fable series. Most of the gameplay features people complain about being stripped out aren't exactly taken away, but instead changed into something different. I've played 1 & 2 and both had plenty of differences between the two as well. I rather liked the Sanctuary (pause menu), and thought it added to the game. Where a basic inventory list would be you have a graphical interface that makes it more fun and interesting to see. The only real complaint I have with the new features is the expression wheel being dumbed down to a basic choice between good, bad, rude, or scary actions that are preselected in a cycle. The frame rate issues can be annoying, but as long as it's downloaded on you drive it is not too big of a deal. I do like the Road to Rule as a visual means of progress and your replacement for the XP orbs.
After completing Fable 3, all I just wanted to do is play Fable 2. Does anyone have that feeling? I mean I wasnt looking forward to the good graphics. I was looking forward to the gameplay and the lack of it just disappointed me. I was expecting a fable 2 with more features but what I got was less features. One of the biggest features that made FABLE stand out from other games is picking up those experience orbs. Now its like barely noticeable.
i feel as though lionheads choice of aesthetic may have squandered some of that technical prowess, sometimes in game it doesnt feel quite as pretty as Fable 2 which undeniably was a much more charming and quaint game than Fable 3.
What no showing aurora areas!!!???? The graphics in that area alone are some of the most stunning ive seen in a while (the atmospheric effects alone are on par with uncharted 2's
Graphics are much better, though i don't think their good enough to warrent a compatablity test.
Certainly a better looking title. More time with the console is easily allowing them greater freedom of artistic depiction. As with all consoles, graphics get better with experience.
The graphics are better, but what about the frame rate? I loved Fable 2 but the frame rate annoyed me.
9uitarman - That was ridiculous. The graphics on here do not suck, they are slightly above most current games. And your entire argument is based on shoveling, if they payed that much attention to all graphics there would be no game, or it would take forever to make it. This isn't a CoD or Halo game, they don't have time to tweak every detail.
The graphics aren't that much better. They suck for a 2010 game. Blotchy, things go into other things. I mean, just watch when you dig for treasure... 1) No hole appears. 2) No dirt is shown on your shovel, it just comes off of the shovel (appears in mid air). 3) The dirt you dump off your shovel just goes into the ground.... I love this game, and the others, I just think they could do far better on the graphics.
I prefer Fable 2's graphic style, even though the third one's much more detailed and superior, obviously. But i don't really like the doom and gloom style of fable 3. I'll just have to wait a couple mroe days before i play the game for myself to see how much i feel about it.
Maybe i'll try this one, recently had a go on the original fable but unfortunatly the bland gfx soon bored me. May give this a go before it's out of date. When's the next Elder Scrolls coming? that's what I want to know
i was thinking, "They havent even thought up any new area! these look exactly the same" then realised its a sequel to the second game rather than a new world. -Facestairs-
Yeah yeah lovely graphics would be so much nicer if they hadnt included some horrible bloom and motion blur that make the screen look a freakin mess most of the time. Why bother to go to all that trouble?!
Wow...didn't know how much of an improvement the graphics were between Fable 2 and Fable 3 until I saw this.
realy great game fable 3 is would of thaught in co-op players can travel to different towns from one another also i miss the freedom of emotes from the RB :(
The big difference between 2 and 3 for me is that I could finish Fable 2 as I am stuck in a mission in fable 3 and it would appear I will have to start again. So maybe it looks better than 2 maybe it would have best to release Fable 3 finished and not broken.....
a sort of liked fable 2 was alright not the best but it kept is busy. but a feel like if a play 3 it will leave is sick like the new fallout did(and am easy to please when it comes to rpgs)
@organbank 14 hours is better than the two hours it took me to complete CoD. I'm still waiting for Fable 3 to come out for the PC anyway and I WILL buy it.
And right here is the problem. Spent too much money in production values and have bugger all gameplay = FAIL. 14 hours to finish a game is a rental at best. Developers need to find a happy medium because ATM super graphics and super short games are a rip off.
Well I dont see much difference between the two and I don't particularly care about Fable. If this was about the difference between Killzone 2 and Killzone 3 it would be way more interesting. Too bad that can't happen for a couple more months.
I enjoyed the story of fable 3 and the graphics are indeed better ( especially water) but the combat left me wanting more out of it and character interaction wasn't as complex as fable 2 which made it disappointing. I love the fable series but fable started 3 out disappointing but did pick up the pace towards the end of the game where as if they didn't add the last part it would have sucked immensely.
i have to say the leap isnt that great and the fur on the dog in three looks so stupid. Also the first picture in II looks better but the rest will got to III just by a hair(except character models)
It's too bad Fable 3 has so many bugs. I was really enjoying it until one of these bugs forced me to stop playing. Now I have to wait weeks for a patch to be released before I can play it again. Lionhead must have the worst game testers in the world.
number 3 does look a hell lot more detailed but the dogs fur on three look odd like its tacked on with glue and compared to the dog in 2 which is a diffrent breed anyway has anyone else noticed that through out the whole game u never see anyone else with a pet dog wel i have'nt played 3 but in two you were definitly the only guy in the whole world of fable who had a dog
@Wula_ Well, to be honest with you, that brightness is what turned me away from the earlier fable games. The plotlines were not dark enough to capture my interest.
is it just me or does the second game look more bright and possibly fun to play then the grimmer third installment? Or did they just happen to take screenshots of all the grim looking locations from 3?
Does III look better then II? Ok, I guess so but not really enough for me to care. What's disappointing are the gameplay elements that have either at best simply not improved and at worst have regressed as if Lionshead was somehow traveling backwards in time. Do these people not get out much or was this just cover so that in a year Molyneux can come out and proclaim how miserable this game was compared to his incomparable vision?
What I found really annoying was the new interaction system used in F3, I mean, if I want to talk to a guy, why the hell do I have to dance with the guy, or hug him, I mean, the wheel system used in F2 gave a real choice to what to do or what to say or what action use, more quickly than in F1 and F1 TLC. Also, magic, sure the mix of spell is quite astounding but is the lack of spells and more important the mobility that F2 and F3 lacks in comparison to their predecessors, the game is aesthetically beautiful but lacks the things that made Fable a game you played several times and enjoyed each more than the last. Aging and combat some of those. Now this game also brings lots of possibilities, like new jobs, investments and some weapons, but definitively needs more combat... Oh Bow of Skorm I miss you so...
Fable 3 is much better than fable 2, but fable 1 is still the best of all. Most likely because it was original. I believe that fable 3 did downgrade in many areas from fable 2, but the story and graphics have thrived. I beat fable 3's story without any sidequests in about 20 hours and now I'm doing all the sidequests and its clear that this game is huge. There's so much to explore, I've put about 50 hours into it and am still looking for gnomes and keys and books. It could be much better, but I feel it has achieved greatness because it does have the replay value. Every time you play will be very unique.
I liked Fable 1 a bunch but thought Fable 2 was too easy, buggy, ugly (technically, not artistically), and boring. There was so little to do in Fable 2! Unfortunately I don't think Fable 3 deserves a look. The only reason reviewers gave F2 and F3 good reviews is because AAA mainstream titles cannot get a bad review lest the review jeopardize sales. What Molyneux needs is more bad reviews so he can re-excavate the gem that was F1. But if you did like F2 and F3, that's ok too; you can disagree with me =)
Indeed Fable 3 is the best looking game in the series to date. It's also the one with the worst core mechanics and story telling. I can't help but feel that Lionhead studios are not so slowly disappearing up their own backsides, in their quest to concentrate on all the frippery surrounding a good game rather than the game itself.
Conversation powered by Livefyre
