Fable 2 - Key Features @ Next Gen

[Dhruin]

Peter Molyneux's opening statements about Fable 2 features from GDC aren't likely to excite our readers but perhaps the inclusion of coop will be more incentive. Here's an early snip from Next Gen's report (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9283&Itemid=2):
Molyneux wants Fable 2 to sell even more than the 3.5 million copies of the original. To do that, Molyneux has to make the game accessible to everyone, and make them care. "We need to make people of all skills feel cool playing the game," he explains. He's relying on the trifecta of drama, combat, and co-op play (and the fourth thing held up his sleeve that will involve "Fable touching more of the outside world").

Drama is a central element because it makes players remember your game, says Molyneux. He needed to create things that players cared about. The first was a pet dog that will follow the player throughout the game world of Albion. The second was a family -- players can get married, have children they can provide for or abandon, and the family's presence (or lack thereof) affects a child's development. The third is dynamic regions. Everything you touch will change. The actions you take will have direct consequences on what you touch and what you've changed. Molyneux hints that at some point in the game you'll make a small change that will have huge consequences in the world's capital later on.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=8106)

[Zakhary]

That whole pet/family thing is kinda cool.

[GhanBuriGhan]

That whole pet/family thing is kinda cool.

Fable sounded cool too...

[xSamhainx]

remember now kids, Molyneux bad

[rbtroj]

Wow - I'm surprised to learn that some people actually found the first game difficult. I thought the controls could not have been simpler (especially on PC), and the choices in interaction were also not especially complex.

I'm all for lowering the bar to entry, but I can't help but feel that they're selling the franchise a bit short. I hope they don't dumb-it-down too much.

I know they (and other developers) are under tremendous pressure to reach broader audiences, especially in a world where analysts have lumped all flash games (good or bad) in on top of more "traditional" videogames (I know, I know ... what's traditional anymore?)

I think it's a sad sign that games like Bejeweled (which I liked) and those wacky marble-train games are mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Fable. Though I suppose saying so is likely to invite a fair number of flames my way.

[kalniel]

Co-op on PC?

[txa1265]

I am still waiting on the promised potential from Black & White ... ;)

[drum]

Fable sounded cool too...

And it really was, wasnt'it?

[The Watchman]

And it really was, wasnt'it?

No it wasnt.

[Thaurin]

No it wasnt.

My opinion is better than your opinion!!1!

[DaDoom]

I liked Fable. I think the problem with B&W or Fable is not the game but the high expectations people build up when listening to Molyneux. The guy loves to talk about games and game concepts. He has some good ideas too, but they are not as revolutionary as one might think. Maybe the underlying technology needs to develop a bit further before his ideas can be fully implemented in a game and can really make a difference.

[txa1265]

I liked Fable. I think the problem with B&W or Fable is not the game but the high expectations people build up when listening to Molyneux.

Absolutely - I enjoyed Fable ... it was a nice ~12-15 hour game with very limited scope. But that wasn't anything like the game originally promised ...

[Chekote]

Forget Fable and make Dungeon Keeper 3 damnit!

[DaDoom]

Forget Fable and make Dungeon Keeper 3 damnit!

Whoa! Now that would be something ;)
Or Planescape Torment 2, imagine that!

[Chekote]

I think PS:T2 would be a bad idea. It would be insanely tough to live up to the original, and if it fell short, it would taint everyone's fond memories.

Besides, Peter didn't have anything to do with PS:T (He designed Dungeon Keeper)

[zakhal]

I think PS:T2 would be a bad idea. It would be insanely tough to live up to the original, and if it fell short, it would taint everyone's fond memories.

Besides, Peter didn't have anything to do with PS:T (He designed Dungeon Keeper)

Why must they always make sequels? Id be happy for enhanced edition even. Same ol game except ported perfectly to modern computers with plenty of extras. Just like the EAs sports series (allthough preferrably more extras than that).

There are many games I played like over 10 years ago. I dont remember much if any details from them. Id be more than willing to play them again in modern versions.

[Dez]

To do that, Molyneux has to make the game accessible to everyone

That sentence doesn't sound very thrilling...

How can they even make combat more accesible than it aleady was? Why is it so awfully wrong to expect gamers to learn how to play games? Isn't it part of the fun? :)

[zakhal]

That sentence doesn't sound very thrilling...

How can they even make combat more accesible than it aleady was? Why is it so awfully wrong to expect gamers to learn how to play games? Isn't it part of the fun? :)

Perhaps they are trying to attract people who dont play games aka create new gamers.

[doctor_kaz]

Can somebody please tell me what Peter Molyneaux has done in the past 10 years to deserve this kind of attention and coverage?

[Geist]

One of the more interesting points he raises is the concept of family. For most of us our parents, brothers, sisters, spouses, children etc. play a major role in our lives, yet for some reason games almost always completely ignore this. I haven't seen much interest from gamers in this direction, but I think it would be worth exploring. After all, it's a theme that's all too prevalent in fiction; why must a game always cast the player as an orphan or a mysterious stranger who has lost his/her memory? When was the last time you received a letter from home while adventuring in an RPG? I'll be interested to see how Molyneux handles the concept this time around.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I like this idea as well, and to be honest, I don't rememer a single RPG (at least dfor the PC) where this concept has been fully worked out.

This comes near to my concept of "fighting for something" vs. "fighting against something" (there once was an old "Alrik's different angle" article over there at RPGDot).

[Maylander]

Baldur's Gate used family quite a lot actually - revenge on Sarevok for Gorions' death, rescue Imoen, the main character being a child of Bhaal, fighting your own siblings in Throne of Bhaal, etc.

For me, that's pretty much the limit though - involve family more than that and it turns into The Sims.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

For me, that's pretty much the limit though - involve family more than that and it turns into The Sims.

Which would attract more female gamers, I guess.

[Arhu]

I like this idea as well, and to be honest, I don't rememer a single RPG (at least dfor the PC) where this concept has been fully worked out.

This comes near to my concept of "fighting for something" vs. "fighting against something" (there once was an old "Alrik's different angle" article over there at RPGDot).

ICO was marvelous in the way it made you care about your protégé from what I've heard, but alas, not available for PC so I could never play it myself...