Though the talk is called Complex Challenges of Intuitive Design, Molyneux says "it's more to do with how we're taking the design of Fable II and radically changing it in Fable III and some of the angst you go through in the design decisions." Of course, those decisions are primarily about simplifying the game.
"The whole Fable series was built out of our passion for role playing games," says Molyneux. And in the past, with games like Ultima or even, more recently, Fallout 3 games were about "numbers and stats".
When embarking on Fable III development, "our dream was -- and I got in a lot of trouble for this dream -- was to take Fable and push the boundaries of what we think of as RPG. We asked ourselves... Are we really a role playing game or are we starting to become more of an action adventure game? We started getting obsessed about it."
At the Lionhead offices, Molyneux wrote this question on the whiteboard: "Is RPG dead for Fable?" Predictably, this inspired a great deal of debate. If the developers moved the series towards an action-adventure, the team asked itself, "What would we lose and what would we gain?"
Of course, there are commercial considerations that prompted this question. "If Fable doesn't get bigger as a franchise it will eventually die," says Molyneux. "We were very happy with the success of the franchise -- we sold about 3 million of Fable and 3.5 million of Fable II. But we want to sell about 30 percent more of Fable III." And, unfortunately, because the genre is so hardcore, "Marketing finds it quite hard to sell an RPG."
But there was an even bigger consideration, he says. "The most interesting thing of all -- and this is a fascinating thing when you're designing a franchise like Fable -- we get a lot of user research back, and Microsoft's quite good at it. What we found from this research was this disastrous, awful number. More than 60 percent of the Fable audience understood less than 50 percent of the features."
Of course, says Molyneux, "This was enormously frustrating. We're creating content that people don't care about and don't use, and we're spending vast amounts of money on this."
On an industry-wide basis, says Molyneux, now "there's this enormous drive to clarity and simplicity" and "feeling [you're] a part of the world in seconds." Tutorials are on their way out, he says, replaced by "a dream, where we can say, 'just play the game.'"
To figure out where to make changes, the team identified what's core to Fable:
- Morphing system - the character changes in appearance
- The "every choice a consequence" system, which "was a huge success. Players love to choose."
- Drama - "You've got to take that drama very seriously"
- Emotion - "very, very important."
- Accessibility - "moving to one button combat."
When evaluating what was core to the series, Molyneux had a revelation: "How many of those things in there are really RPG?" And when examining Fable II, "And the RPG-like segments were really confused because of our 2D GUI."
Simplify The Interface
Because of that, there was a goal towards simplification of the interface -- the most confusing element of the game. Says Molyneux, "The truth of the matter is that the interface that we had in Fable II and Fable is that people who played the game had to work through up to 300 items in a list."
Players gave up on systems like changing costumes because of that. "We said to ourselves, take the whole of the 2D interface and put it into the 3D world." Later, Molyneux demoed the new costume system -- which involves a butler played by John Cleese and full in-world mannequins.
"Removing things like the health bar... epitomizes this drive for simplicity," says Molyneux. The game is moving to a more shooter-like in-world context-based health system.
Reducing the Player Complexity
The player morphing was very important -- but Molyneux wants to make it clearer. "If you use a sword, your muscles get better -- it's that simple. If you use a hammer, which is even bigger and heavier, they'll develop more." This continues with other weapons and other options, such as eating food, which makes the character heavier. "The big design flaw that we made was to put the morphing within the experience system."
Combat has been changed to a one button system -- with a charge move as well as a quick hit. "It's all down to that number -- 60 percent of the people understood less than half of the game," says Molyneux.
Amplify Emotional Connection
The dog was a big hit in Fable II -- and the goal for the next game was to make the dog more meaningful -- "more compulsive and make you play with him more."
More importantly, says Molyneux, "We've got a big new feature called 'touch' - this is the ability to reach out and touch at any time during the game. This was all part of the emotional connection. We were very inspired by a game called Ico, and what an amazing game it was."
This is a purely context-sensitive system for interacting with characters in the world -- and according to Molyneux, "It replaces a huge segment of the game."
Finally, there is a new system of "judgments". "Now, within Fable III, we had this problem where we were running out" of ideas for moral choices, "so we've introduced this whole mechanic called judgments." He refused to elaborate beyond saying it ties into the system where your player becomes a king later on.
Make the Story Clearer and More Dramatic
Of course, just like a tremendous amount of media -- not just games -- there's an obvious path to take the story in Fable. Says Molyneux, "When we came down and thought about the story... We realized we could sit down and start another hero's journey. We asked ourselves this very simple question. 'What if we made that hero's journey the halfway mark in our game?'"
Thus, in Fable III, you overthrow the evil tyrant king and then become king yourself. As a design consequence, says Molyneux, "Suddenly giving you the feeling of power became really important. We want people to feel really powerful, that's what role playing games are all about, man!"
And with great power, as they say... "On the way to becoming king, just like any politician in the world, you'll make all of the promises you're going to make." And from that, says Molyenux, "You'll realize that being powerful means being responsible and that's a really interesting mechanic."
Make the Core Mechanics More Simple
"This was a big one for us -- throwing out the experience system. I began to realize [that experience systems are] all about combat, but actually the Fable world is much bigger than that," says Molyneux.
If you get rid of experience points, "Can we start to think about another currency, just one currency for people to care about? And that's where we came up with this idea of followers. What if we had this simple idea that everything you did, no wonder how noble or wonderful or trivial, made you gain or lose followers?"
And when it comes to online features, he was coy, saying, "I Twitter now, and I've got followers on Twitter. Can we integrate that into the Fable experience?"
Of course, the core of RPG achievement is still the leveling system. "We are still keeping leveling up -- it's done visually within the world, not in a 2D interface. We celebrate it visually."
Fable Combat Philosophy
Josh Atkins, the game's lead designer, took the podium to discuss the game's combat.
When approaching the new game, the team asked itself, "What about Fable combat mechanics have made the game fun to play?" In his opinion, it's that the game gives you a meaningful reason to fight.
"We started looking at our competitors slash the games we admire. Who out there do we really like?" Since the team was thinking more action-based, they looked at Team Ninja's Ninja Gaiden, and Sony Santa Monica's God of War. "What do they do? How can we improve?"
But those games don't hold all of the answers, says Atkins. "When you look at games right now, and you get into the nitty gritty stuff, they do a lot of really fast transitions. Your character looks really good but you're not seeing what he or she is doing."
When it comes to enemy design in most games, you don't remember much about the enemies or what they represent in the game world, or even how they really look. All you remember, says Atkins, is "you remember what it feels like to fight them." In Fable III, he says, "Each creature had to have not just a [design] but a place in the world and a personality."
And as Molyneux says, "The big point in Fable III is about feeling powerful." This means that gameplay balance "is a huge discussion topic. Is Fable too easy? That's a tough thing to figure out. We balance Fable very intentionally. It really is built around feeling powerful, so when we evaluate other games it's built around what arcades do. We need to slowly move away from that and move towards balance to create an emotional experience. We want you to care and to feel strong, and rooted in the world. Clearly there's a fine line there, and the game could get too easy."
Q&A
When asked if the "golden breadcrumb trail" from the last game worked -- the questioner thought it made the game too linear -- Molyneux says that in fact, "I loved that it wasn't a corridor unless you wanted it to be a corridor. What we want to do better in Fable III is tempt you off the breadcrumb trail."
Of course, Fable is known for its moral choices -- but we're beginning to be bored with obvious, dark/light moral choices. Molyneux agrees that the moral waters have to be muddied. "I think [choices] get really interesting when you're slightly more morally ambiguous. It's about how cruelty now equals kindness later."
And though he clearly wanted to speak about it, Molyneux was unable to discuss Natal integration in Fable III. "Natal is wonderfully additive to this experience... it's been a real joy to put some Natal stuff in," says Molyneux, and sadly nothing more.
I love that Lionhead is challenging the notion of what makes an RPG an RPG. If they are erring on the side of action adventure I wish that dungeon crawling was something that gets more focus in Fable III. For all the simplifications that have been made to various systems and mechanics, dungeon complexity and variety has suffered the most.
The overworld and towns are spectacular in Fable 2 but the underworld locales and puzzles were far to basic and bland. If you see Peter again ask him if they plan to spice things up down there. They can go ahead and gentrify the interface all they want but I think the addition of a few epic Zelda-esque dungeons and super secret treasure hunts will not interfere with their "RPG for the masses" mission statement.
While I love the fable series, it has always felt more of an action adventure game rather than a real RPG.
It seems like an obvious progression. I wish that they would have given us more DLC with Fable 2, It would be nice if they gave us more for Fable 3. Lastly, I hope if they have the real estate purchasing from Fable 2 in Fable 3, they greatly enhance and improve it. My character at end had way too much money, and nothing to buy. Alot of the items in Fable 2 didn't really feel worth spending money on.
Not just in-game economies, but game developers as a group appear to be giving up the entire effort to recreate “role-playing games” on computers. Apparently they’ve collectively decided it’s just too hard to deliver something of the old D&D experience that a creative human Dungeon Master could plan and improvise.
Ironic, given that we are finally starting to see the kinds of computing power that could support NPCs who behave in plausible but interesting and game-fun-supporting ways, which was one important element of what human DMs provided.
I haven’t given up hope entirely. Hope fueled my “Living World” design concept. (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BartStewart/20090420/1204/The_quotLiving_Worldquo t_Game.php) It’s always possible that some cash-rich developer could decide to take another shot at creating a game where the action doesn’t swamp the roleplaying. Gamers shouldn’t be doomed to the elimination of *character* from games merely because it’s easier to write the code for shooting things in the head than it is to build a world where players can immerse themselves for a while in living someone else’s interesting life, or because some people incorrectly claim that roleplaying is defined by “numbers and stats.”
If 60% of your audience understand barely 50% of your game’s features, one possibility is that you have too many features or you’re not expressing them well.
What about the possibility that you’re targeting your game at the wrong audience?
Look at Motomu Toriyama's comments on the tech deciding what could be implemented in FFXIII. It's interesting that as Bart points out that "we are finally starting to see the kinds of computing power that could support NPCs who behave in plausible but interesting and game-fun-supporting ways, which was one important element of what human DMs provided" still requires tremendous time to implement properly. Granted, one of the problems with FFXIII is that the graphics and presentation are so slick, that in order to balance that presentation with NPCs and towns with the same level of polish, it would have truly been a monumental undertaking. I think that like Jonathan and Bob are onto something between ME2 and RPGs turning into FPSs. It's easier because the technology is so much more difficult to work with.
That being said, I still remember being completely immersed in FFI on an 8 bit NES, so something seems to be missing.
That's an interesting and, I think, positive analysis from Peter on what would make Fable better. I tend to agree. The thing about RPG-ing is that it is very difficult to do well without hundreds of hours of game content to let it flesh out.
Part of why the Final Fantasy games have always worked so well, for example, is that sense of rolling out the game slowly over many hours. So it doesn't have the problem of rushing to make the player understand over a short time-scale, nor the problem of so many systems being included that the interactions between them feel incomplete. Fable has had these problems, I think, because the length of time on the games is really very short.
On the other hand, most action-adventure games (like the God of War games) are much shorter than an RPG and yet still feel complete because they do not have so many mechanics and meta-mechanics competing for attention in the game design. It sounds like that is more in the vein of what Lionhead are going to aim for in F3, in which case I think it has a strong chance of working out for them.
I am minded of the similar decision that Rockstar made between GTA: San Andreas and GTA4 where they opted to strip out a whole lot of cosmetic RPG elements. It's for much the same reason: Ultimately the framework of the game didn't meaningfully support those kinds of mechanics. At the same time they kept in most of the social role-playing (going out, having a drink, playing Darts, etc) because that did fit inside the framework of what a GTA game was, and even if you don't particular find that fun at least it made sense in context.
(Disclosure, I worked at Lionhead for a while, though not on Fable)
Better to be sexy than worthy hey? Good article I must say and I agree with you on the contingencies and schedules that F3 will take the player through, particular on the RPG elements. John Hopson has a good article on Behavioral Game Design that talks about iterating rewards and lulls that players experience between the spikes - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1
I didn't play Fable, but I picked up Fable 2 when I was able to download iterations through Xbox LIVE. I was interested to see how I would react to the idea of experiencing DLC episodes and if the game segments would compel me to keep purchasing. I was particularly interested because I have been brainstorming ideas on episodic games for a year now and wanted to see how a real experiment would work. Fable 2's episodes are a fair bit different to what I had been working on, and I sort of don't feel compelled to purchase the third episode because I feel that I'm missing out on accomplishments, when I have all this money and a few strange tasks that can't seem to be completed. The design and quality is right, but I think I need to experience completion more thoroughly, especially having such a large world and all sorts of minor personal paths to take that sort of scatters my brain.
As for the RPG element, I don't think it's fair to say that Fable 3 is abandoning it. D&D is a small niche experience compared to the way the larger electronic gaming world expects to experience choose-your-own-path adventures. And does D&D really reward its players anyway, or is just second life? Let's not associate D&D the ultimate perspective of RPG gaming. Really, to me, what's at the heart of both D&D and the Fables is choose-your-own-path adventure, but I think every element must be attractive and rewarding to pursue just that. There must be some sort of compulsion to try paths out, and not just pick the critical. GTA: San Andreas is a good talking point for this because while it does have a critical storyline, the bigger game play experience is always reward. I think the theme of GTA stinks in general and I hate the idea of being sucked into a game filled with smutty jokes and brain-dead gangsters, but the stunts and world is genuinely, gratuitously rewarding. Do I want to hammer an anvil for 5 hours, no! Why do I have to do something repetitious and boring to get a reward, that's what real life is for! Do I want to experience empowerment while doing something exciting, then be reward... YES!
Not sure I agree with the anti-RPG comments. Experience points as a game mechanic are highly addictive./ They're saying they want good reasons for you to fight, but they're removing the best reason of all - that each dispatched enemy contributes to making me a bit better. I think it was a mistake in ME2 as well as the combat is less rewarding. You have your level mission goals and nothing more. It's hard to stay motivated.
They should be careful they don't lose that 40% of their audience that did understand the game. I loved Fable II, completed it and all the expansion packs ... and this article has succeeded in completely destroying my enthusiasm for Fable 3.
"...this article has succeeded in completely destroying my enthusiasm for Fable 3." Joe I recommend not reading anything more about Fable 3. The hype machine that is Peter Molyneux always makes me nervous and skeptical.
A quick Fable rant from a fan:
Fable 1 & 2 are fun games, and offer many unique experiences. They excel at humor and interactive worlds effected by the players choice. In game combat and economics, however, lag far behind. Fable 1 money was too difficult to acquire, and Fable 2 it was too easy. Both games have an overabundance of junk items, and the second game needed a better variety of high end weapons. I felt underwhelmed by many of the "hero" weapons in Fable 2. I did enjoy the real estate system, but that felt like the only enjoyable economic segment. It was also very easy to exploit.
In regards to combat I would love to see a fusion. The magic and melee combat from the first mixed with the range combat of the second. I have no idea why the magic system was changed for Fable 2. The first game had a greater selection of spells, and the controls were rock solid. I did not enjoy the overpowered and underwhelming charge up system and the small number of spells from the sequel. Melee was also limited to one button in Fable 2--very boring. The range, however, saw an improvement. Being able to lock on and switch targets with ease was a great idea. Unfortunately the changes to range combat made the shooting galleries harder.
Back to the article:
"When you look at games right now, and you get into the nitty gritty stuff, they do a lot of really fast transitions. Your character looks really good but you're not seeing what he or she is doing." I'll agree about fast transitions BUT...
I'm an avid hack n slash fan so maybe my eyes catch the nitty gritty stuff. I tend to perform combos and special moves that I find satisfying as well as effective. It's also pretty hard to forget some of the character designs from Ninja Gaiden and God of War. Slicing up a giant purple fiend with fire breath, or ripping the head off a medusa like creature is part of the fun. I tend to remember fun.
Sorry if a negative attitude comes across from my comments. I really enjoyed Fable 1 & 2, but both games felt like they were a few cards short of a full deck. I always get the feeling that Lionhead continues to take on more when they haven't mastered what they have already created.
Aaron, just to clarify: please note that my opinion was that it looks like developers are abandoning the effort to recreate in a computer not D&D itself, but “something of the old D&D experience.”
The “stats and numbers” of classic RPGs like D&D matter because they allow the player to define their character as a unique person, with attributes and capabilities and strengths and weaknesses -- as opposed to being merely a vehicle for carrying increasingly powerful weapons, which is what the leveling-through-loot model promotes. It’s disturbing to see the gradual elimination of character internals in computer-based RPGs (which I believe is because computers are still lousy at replacing the innovativeness and high-level planning capabilities of a human DM).
This process of externalizing character gets taken to its logical conclusion in a game like The Agency, which is said to allow players to determine their character’s role by which costume they put on. I suppose that’s still roleplaying, but I think it’s fair to argue that’s a remarkably shallow conception of what a “role” can be.
I’m not suggesting that all is lost. Establishing personal connections with NPCs based on non-lethal actions is another character-immersive element of RPGs, and it sounds like the progression of the Fable series may be strengthening this by applying later consequences for earlier player choices. I think it’s arguable that Dragon Age: Origins (e.g., Alistair’s choice of how to respond to a relative) and Mass Effect 2 (loyalty missions) are trying something similar. If so, it suggests that the form of the RPG can change while preserving some of the character-based features that distinguish it from other kinds of games.
But I’m still perturbed at what seems to be a trend away from allowing players to build and inhabit characters with a wide array of internal qualities, through which it’s possible to explore complex (i.e., interesting) social and physical environments.
More simple! MORE SIMPLE! What the hell is wrong with every single designer thinking they need to simplify everything to the point of becoming totally irrelevant those day, i swear if this disease reach Civilization 5 i will kill someone...
"The dog was a big hit in Fable II" Of course for months and months the only thing you kept ranting on about was this stupid dog. Mollyneux loosen up the tie, every time you open your mouth i see your head inflating a little bit and apparently it's about to blow. This is gotta suck, like mass effect 2 which i played a few hour and became bored to the point i HAD to uninstall that thing and throw the box in a dark corner to amass dust...
@Joshua
You missed one thing that for me was the biggest let down in Fable 2, the removal of the boast system, which was an excellent system to improve replayability of the game, lots of fun in trying to make a quest naked without taking a single hit.
One..one button combat? Wow, that totally kills any interest I have in your game. Stuff like canabalt can do that well, but that is simply not worthy of a $50 console game. There is no reason to be button-paranoid. That is what easy modes are for. Do something to make an interesting game for people who want more than just some simplistic crap to mash in. I guess this just goes to show you'd rather just make money than make a worthwhile product.
The overworld and towns are spectacular in Fable 2 but the underworld locales and puzzles were far to basic and bland. If you see Peter again ask him if they plan to spice things up down there. They can go ahead and gentrify the interface all they want but I think the addition of a few epic Zelda-esque dungeons and super secret treasure hunts will not interfere with their "RPG for the masses" mission statement.
It seems like an obvious progression. I wish that they would have given us more DLC with Fable 2, It would be nice if they gave us more for Fable 3. Lastly, I hope if they have the real estate purchasing from Fable 2 in Fable 3, they greatly enhance and improve it. My character at end had way too much money, and nothing to buy. Alot of the items in Fable 2 didn't really feel worth spending money on.
Ironic, given that we are finally starting to see the kinds of computing power that could support NPCs who behave in plausible but interesting and game-fun-supporting ways, which was one important element of what human DMs provided.
I haven’t given up hope entirely. Hope fueled my “Living World” design concept. (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BartStewart/20090420/1204/The_quotLiving_Worldquo
t_Game.php) It’s always possible that some cash-rich developer could decide to take another shot at creating a game where the action doesn’t swamp the roleplaying. Gamers shouldn’t be doomed to the elimination of *character* from games merely because it’s easier to write the code for shooting things in the head than it is to build a world where players can immerse themselves for a while in living someone else’s interesting life, or because some people incorrectly claim that roleplaying is defined by “numbers and stats.”
If 60% of your audience understand barely 50% of your game’s features, one possibility is that you have too many features or you’re not expressing them well.
What about the possibility that you’re targeting your game at the wrong audience?
That being said, I still remember being completely immersed in FFI on an 8 bit NES, so something seems to be missing.
Part of why the Final Fantasy games have always worked so well, for example, is that sense of rolling out the game slowly over many hours. So it doesn't have the problem of rushing to make the player understand over a short time-scale, nor the problem of so many systems being included that the interactions between them feel incomplete. Fable has had these problems, I think, because the length of time on the games is really very short.
On the other hand, most action-adventure games (like the God of War games) are much shorter than an RPG and yet still feel complete because they do not have so many mechanics and meta-mechanics competing for attention in the game design. It sounds like that is more in the vein of what Lionhead are going to aim for in F3, in which case I think it has a strong chance of working out for them.
I am minded of the similar decision that Rockstar made between GTA: San Andreas and GTA4 where they opted to strip out a whole lot of cosmetic RPG elements. It's for much the same reason: Ultimately the framework of the game didn't meaningfully support those kinds of mechanics. At the same time they kept in most of the social role-playing (going out, having a drink, playing Darts, etc) because that did fit inside the framework of what a GTA game was, and even if you don't particular find that fun at least it made sense in context.
(Disclosure, I worked at Lionhead for a while, though not on Fable)
Better to be sexy than worthy hey? Good article I must say and I agree with you on the contingencies and schedules that F3 will take the player through, particular on the RPG elements. John Hopson has a good article on Behavioral Game Design that talks about iterating rewards and lulls that players experience between the spikes - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1
I didn't play Fable, but I picked up Fable 2 when I was able to download iterations through Xbox LIVE. I was interested to see how I would react to the idea of experiencing DLC episodes and if the game segments would compel me to keep purchasing. I was particularly interested because I have been brainstorming ideas on episodic games for a year now and wanted to see how a real experiment would work. Fable 2's episodes are a fair bit different to what I had been working on, and I sort of don't feel compelled to purchase the third episode because I feel that I'm missing out on accomplishments, when I have all this money and a few strange tasks that can't seem to be completed. The design and quality is right, but I think I need to experience completion more thoroughly, especially having such a large world and all sorts of minor personal paths to take that sort of scatters my brain.
As for the RPG element, I don't think it's fair to say that Fable 3 is abandoning it. D&D is a small niche experience compared to the way the larger electronic gaming world expects to experience choose-your-own-path adventures. And does D&D really reward its players anyway, or is just second life? Let's not associate D&D the ultimate perspective of RPG gaming. Really, to me, what's at the heart of both D&D and the Fables is choose-your-own-path adventure, but I think every element must be attractive and rewarding to pursue just that. There must be some sort of compulsion to try paths out, and not just pick the critical. GTA: San Andreas is a good talking point for this because while it does have a critical storyline, the bigger game play experience is always reward. I think the theme of GTA stinks in general and I hate the idea of being sucked into a game filled with smutty jokes and brain-dead gangsters, but the stunts and world is genuinely, gratuitously rewarding. Do I want to hammer an anvil for 5 hours, no! Why do I have to do something repetitious and boring to get a reward, that's what real life is for! Do I want to experience empowerment while doing something exciting, then be reward... YES!
They should be careful they don't lose that 40% of their audience that did understand the game. I loved Fable II, completed it and all the expansion packs ... and this article has succeeded in completely destroying my enthusiasm for Fable 3.
A quick Fable rant from a fan:
Fable 1 & 2 are fun games, and offer many unique experiences. They excel at humor and interactive worlds effected by the players choice. In game combat and economics, however, lag far behind. Fable 1 money was too difficult to acquire, and Fable 2 it was too easy. Both games have an overabundance of junk items, and the second game needed a better variety of high end weapons. I felt underwhelmed by many of the "hero" weapons in Fable 2. I did enjoy the real estate system, but that felt like the only enjoyable economic segment. It was also very easy to exploit.
In regards to combat I would love to see a fusion. The magic and melee combat from the first mixed with the range combat of the second. I have no idea why the magic system was changed for Fable 2. The first game had a greater selection of spells, and the controls were rock solid. I did not enjoy the overpowered and underwhelming charge up system and the small number of spells from the sequel. Melee was also limited to one button in Fable 2--very boring. The range, however, saw an improvement. Being able to lock on and switch targets with ease was a great idea. Unfortunately the changes to range combat made the shooting galleries harder.
Back to the article:
"When you look at games right now, and you get into the nitty gritty stuff, they do a lot of really fast transitions. Your character looks really good but you're not seeing what he or she is doing." I'll agree about fast transitions BUT...
I'm an avid hack n slash fan so maybe my eyes catch the nitty gritty stuff. I tend to perform combos and special moves that I find satisfying as well as effective. It's also pretty hard to forget some of the character designs from Ninja Gaiden and God of War. Slicing up a giant purple fiend with fire breath, or ripping the head off a medusa like creature is part of the fun. I tend to remember fun.
Sorry if a negative attitude comes across from my comments. I really enjoyed Fable 1 & 2, but both games felt like they were a few cards short of a full deck. I always get the feeling that Lionhead continues to take on more when they haven't mastered what they have already created.
The “stats and numbers” of classic RPGs like D&D matter because they allow the player to define their character as a unique person, with attributes and capabilities and strengths and weaknesses -- as opposed to being merely a vehicle for carrying increasingly powerful weapons, which is what the leveling-through-loot model promotes. It’s disturbing to see the gradual elimination of character internals in computer-based RPGs (which I believe is because computers are still lousy at replacing the innovativeness and high-level planning capabilities of a human DM).
This process of externalizing character gets taken to its logical conclusion in a game like The Agency, which is said to allow players to determine their character’s role by which costume they put on. I suppose that’s still roleplaying, but I think it’s fair to argue that’s a remarkably shallow conception of what a “role” can be.
I’m not suggesting that all is lost. Establishing personal connections with NPCs based on non-lethal actions is another character-immersive element of RPGs, and it sounds like the progression of the Fable series may be strengthening this by applying later consequences for earlier player choices. I think it’s arguable that Dragon Age: Origins (e.g., Alistair’s choice of how to respond to a relative) and Mass Effect 2 (loyalty missions) are trying something similar. If so, it suggests that the form of the RPG can change while preserving some of the character-based features that distinguish it from other kinds of games.
But I’m still perturbed at what seems to be a trend away from allowing players to build and inhabit characters with a wide array of internal qualities, through which it’s possible to explore complex (i.e., interesting) social and physical environments.
Simpler is not always better.
"The dog was a big hit in Fable II" Of course for months and months the only thing you kept ranting on about was this stupid dog. Mollyneux loosen up the tie, every time you open your mouth i see your head inflating a little bit and apparently it's about to blow. This is gotta suck, like mass effect 2 which i played a few hour and became bored to the point i HAD to uninstall that thing and throw the box in a dark corner to amass dust...
@Joshua
You missed one thing that for me was the biggest let down in Fable 2, the removal of the boast system, which was an excellent system to improve replayability of the game, lots of fun in trying to make a quest naked without taking a single hit.