Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fable III Announced For 2010

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the a-boy-and-his-dog-and-his-empire dept.

Role Playing (Games) 52

Flea of Pain writes "Fable III is finally in the works! 'Peter Molyneux revealed that his team is working on Fable III, which will arrive in late 2010, two years after the release of Fable II. The game will give you the primary task of becoming Albion's king and leading the people to happiness and the kingdom to glory. Fable III will be something bold and different, Molyneux promises, stating that story and drama will play a major part in it. New things will be done with the dog and the bread-crumb-trails mechanic, which were present in the second game, and you will be offered complete control of your actions and your people's actions, as you will be the king of Albion. ... [Y]ou will need to balance many things, including poverty and greed, tyranny and compassion or progress and tradition, all in order to keep your subjects happy. Furthermore, you will be able to set taxes and decide how you will rule your subjects. Your spouse, be it a king or a queen, will also point you into various directions over the course of the game. It seems that you will start as a son or daughter of the hero from Fable II and then progress until the halfway point of the game when you will be named king or queen of Albion. This means that you need to keep your save data from Fable II in order for a higher degree of customization.'"

cancel ×

52 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

if the ending sucks as (0)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122147)

if the ending sucks as much as fable 2, then i aint getting it!

Re:if the ending sucks as (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29122407)

Just the ending?, the entire game was devoid of life.

Re:if the ending sucks as (1)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#29127257)

you build upto the ending, so the ending is much more important so the build up will become better also ;)

Re:if the ending sucks as [spoilers] (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29122479)

Spoilers!

Yeah, Molyneux tried to play it off as a deep, moral dilemma, and I couldn't see it that way. Choosing the one that gives you riches is pointless, because you get a million gold. Oh boy, a million! You know how else I can get a million gold? Leaving my console on. And you know what I can do with that million? Buy more property. The chief advantage of buying property that I found was renting it out to make more money. Then you end up with a ton of money, and nothing to do with any of it, because you own everything.

So even for the evil player, the evil option just doesn't cut it. Then there's the super-good option, saving all the people who died working on the tower. But nothing filled me with more disdain for the people of Albion, than meeting the people of Albion. Like, in the tower, when you're meeting the other workers, it's hard to feel sorry for them.

What, you just signed on without asking questions? Why the fuck do you think they hire battle-proven warriors to supervise laborers, you numbskull? And you, laborer, how come you never heard from your buddies who went to work for the tower?

So, whatever, people of Albion. If you're so good and righteous, maybe you should have fed me, my sister and my dog when we were homeless orphans. Maybe if you'd reached into your pocket and said, "hey, maybe these kids need some food, or even a home," I'd have given up my wife, kid and dog, the last of whom is the only family I had after the guy your late husbands signed on with murdered my sister, apart from some scary gypsy woman. And if I do, you know what you guys give me? A thank-you card from "all the people in Albion," and a statue. Guess who already has lots of statues? Me. So what do you give to the man who has everything? Well, here's a hint for you: not a thank-you card for sacrificing his family, you worthless chumps.

So, really, you pick the dog, and that's the good choice, because the dog did more to save Albion than all the people in Albion combined (other than yourself), and that includes your fellow layabout heroes who just sort of moaned and groaned while you fixed everything. (Ohh, boo hoo, my daddy's dead!!! Cram it, wench, been there, done that, moved on.) So the next time something goes wrong, and it will because crazy gypsy woman has the tower now, your immortal dog is on-deck to save the day, and Albion's gene pool is a few thousand stupid punks cleaner.

Re:if the ending sucks as [spoilers] (3, Interesting)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 5 years ago | (#29124203)

I'd use my mod points on you, but since an AC doesn't really do much with karma, I'll go ahead and continue the rant.

SPOILERS

The getting rich aspect of the game sucked because of nothing to buy. You have about 4 sets of weapons to choose from if memory serves me correct. There's piss poor, decent, good, and hard-to-get. Pretty much the same with the clothes. If you want to get awesome weaponry, you need to entertain some demon doors (that look more like philosophy drop-outs than demons) *yawn*. They say that every action you do dictates how the world changes. It doesn't. One town looks according to your alignment and that's it. Your looks may change and people will welcome/run from you. Also, the combat system sucks. There are about 9 spells that change in magnitude, and all of them make you a sitting duck, and your attacks don't really go beyond your ordinary swing of the blade. All-in-all, I've seen more content and innovation in your run-of-the-mill Mario game. It's a good thing I rented it, because the game sucked. The last thing I have to complain about is no multiple saves, as well as a fun auto-save that doesn't allow you to see the alternate endings. Writing this post is more fun than that game.

Re:if the ending sucks as [spoilers] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29128111)

This entire post played through my head in the voice of the original zero punctuation fellow.

Good show.

First question... (0)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122205)

Does it have that damn dog again?

Re:First question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29122649)

Quote from article : "New things will be done with the dog and the bread-crumb-trails mechanic, which were present in the second game, and you will be offered complete control of your actions and your people's actions, as you will be the king of Albion."...

So... yet... the damn dog will be there again

Second question... (1)

TheSambassador (1134253) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126411)

Can you freaking jump?

Ok, ok, jumping (aka platforming) isn't what the game is "about." I should be focusing on other things like "combat" and "immersive storyline." Jumping also isn't what WoW is about, but it makes it a HELL of a lot more entertaining to run around.

I have absolutely NO clue why, but something about being about to hit a key and see my character bounce around on the screen adds TONS of entertainment value. Call me a silly person for being easily entertained... I know that most people I've talked to agree.

Not including jumping not only ruins immersion, but it seems like a developer who's too lazy to add a 3rd dimension to his 3D game.

Re:Second question... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29130963)

Jumping lets you climb to hard to reach spots and that adds to the exploration, figuring out how to get to spot X.

Re:Second question... (1)

oneTheory (1194569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29133041)

The downside for the game maker is it's much harder to program/playtest, since you probably don't want any obvious sequence breaks (when someone can get to an area ahead of the sequence you've defined by the game story). Any increase in mobility means you have to playtest more rigorously.

Re:Second question... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29135063)

Of course sequence breaks are always a neat thing to have.

Re:Second question... (1)

oneTheory (1194569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29135431)

Complicated, unintended sequence breaks are sweet. I especially enjoy watching the ones for games like Super Metroid (SNES), Metroid: Fusion (GBA), and pretty much any game with a shinespark :)

realism (1, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122227)

Your spouse, be it a king or a queen, will also point you into various directions over the course of the game.

Yeah, but I bet your "spouse" won't be able to be a same-sex ruler, and will be about as useful as Superfly. If it were realistic, your spouse would be cheating on you with a nearby realm's ruler, feeding them information, complaining that they never have an equal say in ruling the realm, and raising a bunch of children that want to kill you and take over. And the peasants will scream "Come see the violence inherent in the system!" everytime you try to get information out of them.

Re:realism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29122261)

Yeah, that's what people want: a video game called "Fable" that's exactly like real life.

Re:realism (2, Insightful)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122451)

Your spouse, be it a king or a queen, will also point you into various directions over the course of the game.

Yeah, but I bet your "spouse" won't be able to be a same-sex ruler, and will be about as useful as Superfly.

Why do you say that? I was perfectly able to play as and marry a woman in Fable II.

Re:realism (3, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 5 years ago | (#29123089)

Yeah, but I bet your "spouse" won't be able to be a same-sex ruler

Really? If there was ever a game that would allow this, I would think it would be Fable. Both previous games have allowed for homosexual relationships and marriages. Not to mentioned that polygamy, STDs, orgys, birth control, and infidelity were also all included in some form or another in Fable 2. As far as video games go, Fable is about as sexually progressive as you get.

Re:realism (1)

fumblebee (1459217) | more than 5 years ago | (#29124279)

I want to play Fable, not A Song of Ice and Fire. also, "Mommy, why does Albion have two Kings?"

Re:realism (4, Funny)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125073)

also, "Mommy, why does Albion have two Kings?"

Well, two Queens.

Re:realism (1)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126721)

Mommy, why does Albion have two Kings?

Technically, that would be a King and a King Consort. Co-sovereignity is typically an anomaly. However, the title of King Consort is also rare; usually the lesser title of Prince Consort is granted.

This means the happy couple would most likely be styled His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince Consort.

I wonder how many decades will have to pass before we see that for real.

Sounds exciting.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29122231)

..but hopefully it will have more content than Fable II, which seemed to be way too short. I know there is a lot more content such as side quests, having multiple families, etc., but it seemed like the storyline ended quickly.

Also I am really hoping they improve the multiplayer capabilities. I was thoroughly disappointed when I found that when a friend joins your game, their only choice is to play some generic character. It would be nice for them to be able to choose the character from their own saved games.

Regardless of all of that, I will probably still end up buying Fable III because I think it is an exciting series and well worth the money.

Your spouse, be it King or Queen .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29122365)

So will we be allowed to get a same-sex couple as the ruling pair ..
Think Throgg and Hellu ..

Just do multiplayer better, please (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122481)

The ability to actually visit your friends with YOUR character and be able to move around freely would be a huge improvement. Seriously, the multiplayer in Fable 2 felt like it wasn't even an afterthought--as if it was added on at the very last micro-second before it went gold by a single designer (who was drunk at the time).

Stop reading now (5, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122519)

Peter Molyneux talks about the game he'd like to make, not the game that is released; so if you want to enjoy this game, stop reading about Fable 3 now. Peter Molyneux gets excited and starts talking about all the features he wants to include... and then 18 months later after reality has forced a lot of compromises, gamers are disappointed. This isn't to say that he makes bad games... I've played Fable and Fable 2, and enjoyed both. They're certainly a lot more original than most of the shovelware produced these days, and I consider them to be upper tier. But the key is not to play them with unrealistic expectations. So don't read about Fable 3. The game will be good, so long as you don't expect it to be the Best Game in the Universe, as Molyneux often makes his games out to be.

Re:Stop reading now (1)

Reapy (688651) | more than 5 years ago | (#29132819)

Seriously, there is only so long you can eat the crap he shoveled out. I think his talk big thing started with black and white and continued on from there. Maybe I just didn't read about him or know about him before then for his other games, but I distinctly remember it starting with b&w.

Fable is a neat series, I guess. I sort of hated them. Each one felt like your vast world was contained into a little arena box as you went from area to area. Did they improve this with fable 2?

I do like what he is saying though, I think a very cool game to play would be a hybrid between an RPG and strategy game, where you are managing a kingdom zoomed out, but then when you need to, you zoom in with your hero and take control of battles or significant events like a good RPG fight.

There are all sorts of fidelity between the layers you could have. You could have one very strategy light, and heavy on the action and fighting, or the opposite, heavy strat and light on the action.

Games in the past have sort of hit on this combination before. Master of magic and Age of Wonders both had some tactical combat at a small scale that was somewhat RPGish. Kingdom Under Fire also did it from the other end up, sort of an action RTS game, where you control your troops from a little map on the ground, then run your leader in to clean up key groups of guys with some action RPG. X-COM had perhaps the best combo of this, with a global overall strategy map, then dropping into tactical combat with very RPG like guys that you level up, outfit, and get to know really well.

Elemental, from stardock, looks to be going the Master of Magic route, with probably a slightly deeper then MoM tactical combat. They are saying x-com lite is an idea for the combat. Should be interesting.

But still, this combination of generas could be explored further still, I would really like to see a very RPG flavor game, that has some elements of 'grand strategy' and elements of squad based combat. I haven't played it, but imagine say taking the map from Daggerfall, give it a modern random generated terrain(know they can do better then 1990 :) ), then let you pop around the world ala oblivion. Drop the quest lines, but instead add in a whole strategic layer to it, where you have the kingdoms engaging in diplomacy, troop movement, even work in dungeon crawling at some point. When it is combat time, you can deploy troops, take control of one of them as weaker PC's, or even dispatch your main guy. Don't make everything happen super fast, so you can still take your main guy out and explore or level up or whatever.

Obviously what i'm talking about has just as much possibility of happening as if Peter Molyneux were saying it, but us gamers like to dream. :)

I just have one request (2, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122537)

I could probably sit here and make a list 3 pages long of changes and improvements that I'd like to see in Fable 3 (and I genuinely enjoyed Fable 2). But if I had to pick just one thing that I'd like to see in the next game it would be this. One of the things about Fable 2 that really set it apart from all the others in my mind, was the ability for the character to truly influence the environment of the game world. Save a farmer from a group of bandits, for instance, and 10 years later there's a thriving farm where there was just a shack and a meager carrot patch. Choose not to save him, or join that bandits though and even the farm would be just a distant memory.

However, this aspect of the game was only expressed at a handful of choice moments in Fable 2. The one thing I'd like to see in Fable 3 is more of these, a lot more, and more dynamic changes as well.

Fable 1 and Fable 2 (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122567)

Both were hyped up as complete game-changers that would shake the industry in how immersive they were, and the amount of choice you'd have. First off, you couldn't even play a female character in Fable. He has yet to deliver on 10% of past promises. So excuse me while I withhold my excitement for Fable 3.

Re:Fable 1 and Fable 2 (1)

Nf1nk (443791) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122675)

yes but in fable 2 you could not only play as a female character, you could also pull off a sex change.

Re:Fable 1 and Fable 2 (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122801)

The point is that Peter kept saying these games will feature unparalleled immersion and choice. In reality, they offered far less immersion and choice than existing titles. Heck, compare Fable to Ultima VII (a game that shipped on floppy disks for crying out loud). Peter Molyneaux needs to stop promising 10 times as many features as he can deliver.

Re:Fable 1 and Fable 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29126193)

Peter Molyneaux needs to stop promising 10 times as many features as he can deliver.

Commercially speaking, he's making the right choice by promising a lot and delivering little. The more hype, the more sales.

Where have I heard this? (2)

SOdhner (1619761) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122581)

"you will be offered complete control of your actions"

Man, that sounds familiar. What other game was promising me that? Wait - it was ALSO called Fable, and it instead offered only token control over the world. Whee, a minor change in my physical appearance! I feel so powerful and in control of my destiny!

Let me be the first to say... (5, Insightful)

BForrester (946915) | more than 5 years ago | (#29122685)

I'd be more excited about Fable II coming to the PC than hearing about another 360 exclusive.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

jack1323 (301059) | more than 5 years ago | (#29124825)

I'd give you mod points if I had any. I don't want to buy an 360 just to play Fable II.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#29131597)

It's no good. Really. I even liked Fable I (I didn't pay much attention to the hype, though, so that may have helped, but I didn't for II, either).

Play The Witcher or a well-modded copy of Morrowind or Oblivion instead, if you haven't already. Any of the Baldur's gate series, Arcanum, or the first two Fallouts would be fine, too, if you just want a good PC-RPG to play. Hell, even the barely-mediocre Fallout 3 is better than Fable II.

Or just re-play Fable I. II is awful. It's basically a shitty version of Harvest Moon with a shitty version of one of the Ys games or Crystalis or Zelda: A Link to the Past tacked on, emphasis on the shitty. In fact, just fire up two emulators and play Harvest Moon for the SNES in one and Zelda in the other. There, you're officially having more fun than you would playing Fable II.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

oneTheory (1194569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29133127)

Perhaps the above is flamebait, but not really troll. Some useful info is offered. None of the analogies made are outright wrong and some of them seem quite correct.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (2, Insightful)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#29133397)

I was being serious, not trolling. Thought I was offering useful advice. Wish I'd read something like my post before paying money for such a crappy game. Never even occurred to me that I might get any sort of negative mod for that post. Huh.

You know a sequel sucks when it makes you want to quit playing about 1/4 of the way through and break out the original instead--and then never go back to the sequel ever again.

I've muddled through some bad RPGs, but at least the ARPGs like Fable usually satisfy some sort of dungeon-clearing, exploring urge in me, so that I slug through it even if I'm not enjoying any of the rest of the game. Fable II didn't even do that. To me, the worst thing someone can say about a game is that it fails at what it's trying to do, and Fable II fails hard at pretty much everything it shoots for.

It's not April, so who's the fool? (0)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29123235)

New things will be done with the dog and the bread-crumb-trails mechanic....

Okay, this is a hoax, right? Haha, we were all fooled. You had me except for that line about new things being done with the dog, as if it was a good idea that merely need to be tweaked to make it great, as if it could somehow be slotted into a game that's apparently going to be a king RPG. Really, that line was a bit too Onion-y for it to come off as being a real announcement.

But it was a respectable shot. You got us good, Pete.

...

What? You're serious? Oh, God, you're serious.

Oh Fable, I just can't quit you. (1)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | more than 5 years ago | (#29123327)

I no longer care if he delivers what he promises. I'll assume now the answer is 'no'.

What he really needs to do is budget playtesting and post-playtesting development. Without this simple and important part if the development cycle, you end up with significant flaws in the final product. For Fable 1, you have the incessant and inane voice tips. Try to get your combat multiplier even *higher*! In Fable 2 you have the death mechanic, or should I say lack therof. It trivialized combat completely, making the game feel pointless.

Make sure the game is fun before you release it!

meh (4, Funny)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#29123617)

I liked the first fable but the second fable seemed awful to me. I didn't like the dog, I didn't like the arrow consistantly telling me where to go. It was too easy to wander into too high level of enemies.

So I'll pass on the third too.

From TFA:

Another new mechanic will be called touch, as your interactions with other people will be measured in a more precise manner. For example, if you are trying to court a woman, the new system will slowly allow you to shake her hand, hug her and more. This will be the expression touch, but there will also be a dynamic touch, which will let you reach out and interact with others. Molyneux then describes a good example of when you hear a baby crying. In Fable II, the game would say press A to save the child, but with the touch system, you will be able to pull the child from the house, while cuddling and reassuring him.

Haha I wonder if eventually video games will get so advanced that you'll be able to tell by watching me play that I have no idea how to flirt with girls.

Re:meh (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29131093)

Haha I wonder if eventually video games will get so advanced that you'll be able to tell by watching me play that I have no idea how to flirt with girls.

Don't worry, game developers are nerds too.

Seeing that fable 2 is console only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29123627)

And so willö probably be fable 3. Yawn.

So the PC version is dead then? (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#29124081)

I guess we can assume there won't be a PC version of Fable 2 then....

Unrealistic Hope (1)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125133)

A character (at least face) creator on par with UFC: Undisputed 2009 would be rad. Actually, I wouldn't mind if Fable III is a_highly_refined Fable II. *shrug*

Oh, really? (1)

juuri (7678) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125699)

Fable III will be something bold and different, Molyneux promises, stating that story and drama will play a major part in it.

Oh he promises, does he? Well he has an excellent track record for making good on his promises in the previous Fables games. I'm sure people will be rushing out to purchase the next one based on this alone.

Press 1 to become "groundbreaking" (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126175)

will be something bold and different, Molyneux promises, stating that story and drama will play a major part in it.

Is that some sort of form paragraph for him?

Re:Press 1 to become "groundbreaking" (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29131485)

It's his way of saying "hello".

a little side note (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126393)

If you're wondering why Molyneux announced it this early and is trying to get it as much attention as possible and make it sound like it's going to change gaming forever (again), you need a little back story on him because this is the kind of BS he always pulls.
Here's the short version: he's the king of all self important douchebags who makes even Steve Jobs looks like the Snapple guys in the cranberry commercial. His douchebaggingly long video of himself talking about how Fable 2 was going to be the best, most awesome game ever that will stomp on everyone else's games and be legendary for years was awfully similar to his douchey video for Fable 1. Neither have come even remotely close to what he builds them up to be. He definitely lives in his own little world.
Even the Bethesda team behind Oblivion and Morrowind don't say their games are going to be as good as he does and his products fall waaaaaay the hell behind theirs. Oblivion makes Fable 1 look like Quest64 by comparison and it even stomps on Fable 2, while still magically being released like 3 years prior! It was one of the best games of all time and basically all Bethesda released was "yeah, it's going to be a big improvement compared to previous games and continue to push game quality and design ideas."
And of course Molyneux has a different approach. He goes out there making 20 minute videos telling you how the next game is going to change your life, blow your mind, and be your God. He seriously needs to take it down a notch and I'm not looking forward to the year or more of douchebaggery coming out of his mouth while they make Fable 3.

Re:a little side note (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29131519)

From what I heard from people who worked under Molyneux he tends to think up new features in the middle of an interview and then talk like they're implemented already.

Loading... (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 5 years ago | (#29127289)

Am I alone who played Fable 2 and was completely turned off by the long, VERY frequent loading times? I think I spent more time waiting than playing.

The same old story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29128961)

1. Peter Molyneux shoots his mouth off about his latest game.
2. Game turns out to be nothing like his hyperbolic claims
3. ???
4. Profit!

Fable Hater (1)

Adam Jorgensen (1302989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29133121)

I hated Fable from the get go. Take a guess what I think of this :-)

Re:Fable Hater (1)

Ohrion (814105) | more than 5 years ago | (#29139063)

Your favorite game EVAR?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?