Fable III Review

Story: 9/10

Fable III takes place nearly sixty years after the events of Fable II. During that time, the Hero of Fable II rules as emperor. Fable III starts with that Hero's eldest son, Logan, as the new king of Albion. He is corrupt and cruel, and Albion is in its worst time. You play as Logan's younger brother or sister (the Prince/Princess). Disgusted by what you see is happening to Albion, you decide to leave with your two closest friends: your butler Jasper and your combat instructor Sir Walter Beck, and start a revolution.

The setting does an accurate job of capturing a picture of Britain's Industrial Revolution. The iconic town of Bowerstone (present in all three Fable games) contains massive, towering smokestacks, slums containing sick, hungry beggars, and even child laborers. The sky is darkened by clouds of smoke, and there exists a chasm in society: the rich factory owners, and the poor beggars and laborers.

The writing is top-notch as well. The main questline is serious business, but many of the side missions are amusing and whimsical, and more often than not, you will find yourself bursting into laughter. It's a story that combines witty British humor with a tale of hope and desparation, and it works incredibly well due to the fact that the writers weren't trying to overly dramatize the serious parts or try and put humor in every scene. It's a delicate balance that the writers nailed almost perfectly.


Visuals: 7.5/10

Let's be honest: the Fable series isn't exactly known for its visuals, and this game is no exception. The game has received a nice graphical boost from Fable II's visuals. The game, overall, looks sharper and the colors are more vibrant. However, upon closer inspection, the graphics are still muddy like usual. Still, the game boasts its usual fantastic art style, which saves it from looking awful. The character designs are quirky and memorable, and the lighting is pretty damn good.


Sound: 8/10

The voice acting is top-notch. Fable III features many famous actors, including Stephen Fry (reprising his role as Reaver), Sir Ben Kingsley, Simon Pegg, John Cleese, Bernard Hill, and more. They all do a fantastic job of delivering their lines and making it feel like real dialog.

The music is also fantastic. It does a great job in immersing you in this fantasy world, and reminds you that despite the constant change in setting within the Fable series, this is still the Albion we have revisited time and time again.


Gameplay: 9/10

What's a game without the gameplay? There have been many games that have had top-notch writing and sound, but gameplay ruined it all. Luckily, this is not the case, as the gameplay is much improved over Fable II, and is really fun.

Combat is simple, yet very fluid and deep. There's one button for melee, one for ranged attacks, and one for magic. Mashing the melee button results in a glorious amount of diverse combos being pulled off. The Hero whips his gun around, blasting things away as you mash the ranged attack button. Mashing the spell button results in shockwaves and bolts of magic being thrown everywhere. The targeting system for ranged attacks and spells isn't great, but it works well-enough so that it doesn't completely frustrate the player.

The upgrading system has gotten a tune-up. In Fable II, you would collect dyes as an item, learn expressions from books, level up in occupations by working over and over, and levelling up skills individually using specific types of experience which you would earn based on how you fought (melee, ranged, magic). Fable III pushes that all aside and introduces a simpler, more streamlined upgrade experience called the Road to Rule. By killing baddies and gaining support of the people of Albion, you earn Guild Seals. These Guild Seals can then be spent on upgrading magic, melee, and ranged attacks as a whole. They can also be used to buy spells, dyes, expressions, "packs" (the ability to start a family, buy a house, rent out a house, buy a shop, etc.), and job levels.

On top of expressions, Lionhead has added a new feature called Touch. Touch allows you to, well, touch other people. You can now hug people, kiss people, shake their hands, and guide them to places by their hand. The hand-holding option is cool, but impractical during missions. For example, there was one mission where I had to guide a travelling merchant to a nearby town. So, I had to grab his hand and lead him to the town. On top of being forced to awkwardly hold hands with another man who is a complete stranger, I was also forced to let go of his hand to battle groups of bandits along the way. This makes the mission stop-and-start, which really makes the mission feel disjointed and not as fun as it could be. That being said, Touch, for the most part, is a nice addition to the series.

Another thing that has been streamlined is the menu. Fable II had a laggy, boring menu that I always dreaded having to go to. Fable III has improved upon that with what is known as the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is the same as a start menu, but it is a 3D space. There's a table in the center of the Sanctuary that acts as a map. There are also various rooms you can enter to view Achievements and in-game trophies, exchange weapons, exchange clothing, purchase DLC, and edit online settings. The new map is a big deal, because it allows you to fast travel, look for quests, and adjust rent and prices for the homes and shops you own (whereas in Fable II, you had to walk up to every house/shop and change the rent/prices individually).

The moral system is a key feature of the Fable series. Your appearance changes based on good and bad actions. For example, good actions will form a halo over your head. Bad actions will cause you to grow horns. Fable III expands upon this by also changing the shape of your weapons based on how you play. For example, bad weapons drip with blood. Good weapons grow longer and sharper. These changes are based upon not only what you do in the game, but also major decisions made in the game. The choices are "grey area" choices, meaning there is no obvious answer. You ultimately have to go with what you feel is right. It challenges the player's morality in ways that few games have.

We all love Albion, but I myself have always wondered how things worked outside of Albion. The first two Fable games never allowed the player to travel outside Albion (aside from Fable II's Knothole Island DLC). Fable III changes that by allowing the Hero to travel to a neighboring continent known as Aurora. Aurora is home to unique enemies, weapons, etc., and provides a nice change of setting for the series. It's great to be able to see how towns like Bowerstone and Oakvale have changed over the years, but ultimately gamers want something new, and Lionhead has finally answered that.

The co-op has also been fine-tuned. Fable II's co-op was a complete mess. Only the game host could play as his character. The guest had to pick a minion character to play as. Both players then had to share a screen, and things like over-the-shoulder aiming became impossible. Luckily, Fable III fixes everything. Both players can play as their own characters, and can both bring their dogs into co-op. Each player has his own camera, so players can venture as far from each other as they want. Lionhead has also added new features, such as the ability to marry a friend over Xbox LIVE, bump uglies over Xbox LIVE, and have a child over, you guessed it, Xbox LIVE.


Conclusion:

Fable III is a success in that it is able to add new features while streamlining and simplifying the over-complicated aspects of Fable II that were carried over. Perhaps if Fable II hadn't been such a trainwreck of a game (enjoyable, but still a trainwreck), this game would not have gotten as much praise by me, but Fable III feels like the sequel the original Fable truly deserves. It fixes nearly every problem that Fable II had, as well as adding many new features to the series, almost all of which are welcome. Fable III is easily one of the best games this year, and the simplicity of the game makes it accessible to fans of Fable and newcomers alike.


Final Score: 9/10

cool awesome review.i was thinking about getting it,but its cool to see that people love it..
awesome review

Ah lovely stuff. The more I read about it (the positives) the more I want it. What about longevity?

Stoney wrote:

Ah lovely stuff. The more I read about it (the positives) the more I want it. What about longevity?

Well, I haven't finished the game yet, but from what I hear, it's not too long. Still, there are a lot of side missions, and you can always play a different way a second time around, especially with the decisions you make.

Looks awesome. Definitely gonna pick this one up....after I finally get around to beating Fable 2

This game is so fucking EPIC!

Played it since I got it, 7 hours ago. Straight

I got to say, that sand/desert looks amazing!

Ok, so I have just completed the campaign. The storyline is very good and filled with smart and hard (very hard) decisions.

However, the pinnacle of the storyline is not the start of the revolution and when you are looking for allies, but its the part when you are king. Just take note that you cant be King too long as something big is approaching fast!

You have to decide if you want to be a tyrant and save as many of the people or being a merciful king and thus loosing alot of people in the last part of the main storyline.


As for people that like playing a game after the storyline can rejoice as there are almost more quest available after the last main story mission.

Blixtstorm wrote:

Ok, so I have just completed the campaign. The storyline is very good and filled with smart and hard (very hard) decisions.

However, the pinnacle of the storyline is not the start of the revolution and when you are looking for allies, but its the part when you are king. Just take note that you cant be King too long as something big is approaching fast!

You have to decide if you want to be a tyrant and save as many of the people or being a merciful king and thus loosing alot of people in the last part of the main storyline.


As for people that like playing a game after the storyline can rejoice as there are almost more quest available after the last main story mission.

The King part is really difficult. You've gotta make some incredibly tough calls.

Ah awesome review! Really, you put a lot of info and detail into it and well, it's just excellent.


Just some things to point out: I believe the character you play as is the SON of your hero from fable 2, is it not?

And omg the visuals in Fable 2 were beautiful! Okay, yeah you're right about the slightly muddy textures but the same goes with Uncharted 2. The game looks nasty up close but you wouldn't say Uncharted 2 has 7.5/10 would you?
It's built as a third person game so you need to be thankful that it looks good as one. Then again I don't know if Fable 3 looks better than it...
But yeah, except for that, this has to be better than any actual critic review I've read! lol they're all like "its so annoying, its to similar to the rest of the games, it feels worse than fable 2, its not as good as fable 1"...etc etc But you've really made a deep review looking at both the flaws AND the positive aspects.

Nice one!

DemonWolf wrote:

Ah awesome review! Really, you put a lot of info and detail into it and well, it's just excellent.


Just some things to point out: I believe the character you play as is the SON of your hero from fable 2, is it not?

And omg the visuals in Fable 2 were beautiful! Okay, yeah you're right about the slightly muddy textures but the same goes with Uncharted 2. The game looks nasty up close but you wouldn't say Uncharted 2 has 7.5/10 would you?
It's built as a third person game so you need to be thankful that it looks good as one. Then again I don't know if Fable 3 looks better than it...
But yeah, except for that, this has to be better than any actual critic review I've read! lol they're all like "its so annoying, its to similar to the rest of the games, it feels worse than fable 2, its not as good as fable 1"...etc etc But you've really made a deep review looking at both the flaws AND the positive aspects.

Nice one!

Don't even compare Uncharted 2 to Fable III in terms of graphics. Uncharted 2 is at least a 9/10 in regards to visuals. But thank you for the review of my review.

Yes, you do play as the son of your Fable II Hero. I said that, no? Your Fable II character's eldest son Logan is king. You are Logan's younger brother/sister. Therefore you are the son/daughter of the Fable II Hero as well.

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Ah awesome review! Really, you put a lot of info and detail into it and well, it's just excellent.


Just some things to point out: I believe the character you play as is the SON of your hero from fable 2, is it not?

And omg the visuals in Fable 2 were beautiful! Okay, yeah you're right about the slightly muddy textures but the same goes with Uncharted 2. The game looks nasty up close but you wouldn't say Uncharted 2 has 7.5/10 would you?
It's built as a third person game so you need to be thankful that it looks good as one. Then again I don't know if Fable 3 looks better than it...
But yeah, except for that, this has to be better than any actual critic review I've read! lol they're all like "its so annoying, its to similar to the rest of the games, it feels worse than fable 2, its not as good as fable 1"...etc etc But you've really made a deep review looking at both the flaws AND the positive aspects.

Nice one!

Don't even compare Uncharted 2 to Fable III in terms of graphics. Uncharted 2 is at least a 9/10 in regards to visuals. But thank you for the review of my review.

Yes, you do play as the son of your Fable II Hero. I said that, no? Your Fable II character's eldest son Logan is king. You are Logan's younger brother/sister. Therefore you are the son/daughter of the Fable II Hero as well.

I'm not comparing Fable 3's and Uncharted's graphics, I am just using Uncharted 2 as an example of why you can't say Fable 3 has bad graphics. Because the same way Uncharted looks good, that's how Fable looks good. You said textures look muddy. Well that is pretty much the case with Uncharted 2. On a different scale, yes but look at the flora/vegatation of Fable! It's stunning! Yes the character models are a weak aspect but it's undeniable fable has great graphics, it just has that slightly cartoony style. Fable 2 I'd give at least 8/10 for graphics. If fable 3 looks better, as you say, then it should be a high 8 imo.

lol your review's so good it has it's own review xD

I thought you said that you play as your character from fable 2. Oops my mistake.

DemonWolf wrote:

TRF wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Ah awesome review! Really, you put a lot of info and detail into it and well, it's just excellent.


Just some things to point out: I believe the character you play as is the SON of your hero from fable 2, is it not?

And omg the visuals in Fable 2 were beautiful! Okay, yeah you're right about the slightly muddy textures but the same goes with Uncharted 2. The game looks nasty up close but you wouldn't say Uncharted 2 has 7.5/10 would you?
It's built as a third person game so you need to be thankful that it looks good as one. Then again I don't know if Fable 3 looks better than it...
But yeah, except for that, this has to be better than any actual critic review I've read! lol they're all like "its so annoying, its to similar to the rest of the games, it feels worse than fable 2, its not as good as fable 1"...etc etc But you've really made a deep review looking at both the flaws AND the positive aspects.

Nice one!

Don't even compare Uncharted 2 to Fable III in terms of graphics. Uncharted 2 is at least a 9/10 in regards to visuals. But thank you for the review of my review.

Yes, you do play as the son of your Fable II Hero. I said that, no? Your Fable II character's eldest son Logan is king. You are Logan's younger brother/sister. Therefore you are the son/daughter of the Fable II Hero as well.

I'm not comparing Fable 3's and Uncharted's graphics, I am just using Uncharted 2 as an example of why you can't say Fable 3 has bad graphics. Because the same way Uncharted looks good, that's how Fable looks good. You said textures look muddy. Well that is pretty much the case with Uncharted 2. On a different scale, yes but look at the flora/vegatation of Fable! It's stunning! Yes the character models are a weak aspect but it's undeniable fable has great graphics, it just has that slightly cartoony style. Fable 2 I'd give at least 8/10 for graphics. If fable 3 looks better, as you say, then it should be a high 8 imo.

lol your review's so good it has it's own review xD

I thought you said that you play as your character from fable 2. Oops my mistake.

Dude, Fable 3 does not look very good up-close or far away. The only good part about Fable 3's graphics is the lighting. The character models and the animations are just really bad , and there is alot of pop-up in the environments. UC2 doesn't have any of the problems I just mentioned, and it has higher fidelity poly models and texture resolution.

Every console game I can think of looks bad when zoomed in. Mainly because 720p is a low resolution and texture quality isn't very high because of limited RAM on both consoles. So saying a game looks bad because it looks blurry while zoomed in is VERY stupid. TBH.

well written

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

GeneralMLD wrote:

well written

Yes very true!
Moar reviews please!!

DemonWolf wrote:

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

You and graphics. Just give up already, because with every post you're sounding that more silly and tbh ignorant.

Stoney wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

You and graphics. Just give up already, because with every post you're sounding that more silly and tbh ignorant.

lol thank you for your support. In what way do I sound ignorant? It was no I who said that the resolution changes when you look up close to textures

DemonWolf wrote:

Stoney wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

You and graphics. Just give up already, because with every post you're sounding that more silly and tbh ignorant.

lol thank you for your support. In what way do I sound ignorant? It was no I who said that the resolution changes when you look up close to textures

"Looks mediocre up close and it is entirely procedural textures" OK every game has bad textures somewhere but the devs "hide" them so to speak. I was just completed UC 2 and the textures, in most places, looked fantastic. Especially the snowy and urban environment. There was actually a part during my playthrough where I went up close to the bricks, remember the brick thing? , and was like, "This game is just beautiful, even the bricks look great"

DemonWolf wrote:

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

Considering you thought that PDZ has better texture quality than GOW3, it's hard to believe you know what you are talking about sometimes.

Textures are DOWNSCALED to the native resolution framebuffer. That's the job of the framebuffer. All the different layers of resolutions (textures, shaders, geometry) are scaled to what ever the size of the framebuffer is. A lower native resolution blurs the game altogether. This is partly why COD games have muddy looking textures. As a PC gamer, 720p is a pretty low resolution. Besides, the resolution wasn't even my main point. You CONSTANTLY say that *insert console game here* looks bad up-close as a way to make the game's graphics sound underwhelming. EVERY console game this generation will look pretty bad up-close.

Argueing about graphical tech and visual fidelity are practically the same thing. Since they are both directly linked to each other.

In UC2, the textures AREN'T muddy, and the poly models look fine. Fable 3, however, is a so-so looking game. The only thing you can possibly argue is that the art style of the game looks decent. You OBVIOUSLY haven't played Fable 3. You can tell that the character models look pretty bad just by the in-game cutscenes. It looks like they didn't even try to model Walter's beard correctly.

Stoney wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Stoney wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

You and graphics. Just give up already, because with every post you're sounding that more silly and tbh ignorant.

lol thank you for your support. In what way do I sound ignorant? It was no I who said that the resolution changes when you look up close to textures

"Looks mediocre up close and it is entirely procedural textures" OK every game has bad textures somewhere but the devs "hide" them so to speak. I was just completed UC 2 and the textures, in most places, looked fantastic. Especially the snowy and urban environment. There was actually a part during my playthrough where I went up close to the bricks, remember the brick thing? , and was like, "This game is just beautiful, even the bricks look great"

lol honestly, the bricks are horrible. Maybe they differ from level to level but in one level they were flat, ugly and were lacking detail and had some random sprite thingy ontop of them And also, in that level where you're on the rooftop with the swimming pool... omg what the hell, the staircase to the bar bit, look at the pattern on the wall. It's completely out of place, cut in half and misplaced. XD
The snow, yes it looks good. I'll give you that.

Alan1994 wrote:

DemonWolf wrote:

Alan lolwut?
Stop comparing uncharted to fable!!! And I thought you knew a lot about graphics.... That post proved me wrong. If you aim at a texture, the resolution doesn't affect it in any way!
The resolution doesn't change either or anything! If a texture is designed well, it looks good regardless of whether you look at it from a distance or up close!
But the fact is, fable 2 and most likely fable 3 look beautiful from playing distance! Can you REALLY tell the polygon count from playing distance?! Really?! This is not a graphics tech debate, this is from a reviewing standpoint; how nice does it look.
It includes art style, use of colour, environmental design, etc
The only reason I brought up uncharted is because that deserves a strong high 9/10 but the reasons you and trf bash fables graphics is because of the up close muddiness of textures, character models and lack of polygon count when uc2 is guilty of the same things (except characters). It looks mediocre up close and it is entirely made up of procedural textures.... So much for it's polygon count! Fable actually looks beautiful up close in some cases!

Considering you thought that PDZ has better texture quality than GOW3, it's hard to believe you know what you are talking about sometimes.

Textures are DOWNSCALED to the native resolution framebuffer. That's the job of the framebuffer. All the different layers of resolutions (textures, shaders, geometry) are scaled to what ever the size of the framebuffer is. A lower native resolution blurs the game altogether. This is partly why COD games have muddy looking textures. As a PC gamer, 720p is a pretty low resolution. Besides, the resolution wasn't even my main point. You CONSTANTLY say that *insert console game here* looks bad up-close as a way to make the game's graphics sound underwhelming. EVERY console game this generation will look pretty bad up-close.

Argueing about graphical tech and visual fidelity are practically the same thing. Since they are both directly linked to each other.

In UC2, the textures AREN'T muddy, and the poly models look fine. Fable 3, however, is a so-so looking game. The only thing you can possibly argue is that the art style of the game looks decent. You OBVIOUSLY haven't played Fable 3. You can tell that the character models look pretty bad just by the in-game cutscenes. It looks like they didn't even try to model Walter's beard correctly.

I stand by what I said. Okay, GOW may be a more technically impressive game but I'm not changing my mind about the texture detail. PDZ has better looking textures.
Back to all the technical stuff... Ignore that. Do gamespot, ign or any other critic site review games based upon how they were made? No! If they look pretty that's all what matters. It was never my argument that Fable is a technical marvel. No way. Very few third person games are! But you cannot say that Fable doesn't look good without looking foolish. It is a beautiful game in so many aspects. Character models are the only exception. No I've not played Fable 3 but if it's any better looking than Fable 2 then it's a very good looking game. Also, I know character models are never good looking in Fable games, but neither are the ones in Gears Of War but it still looks beautiful. Unlike MGS which has beautiful character models and ugly environments.
Compare Fable to other games of it's style. Do the other games have the same quality flora/vegetation? No! I mean, I've not played a game which has trees that look as good as Fable's! Every single leaf is a single thing as opposed to pretty much any other game which has bunches of leaves as one packed together thing. Even Uncharted 2 hasn't got leaves looking quite as good. In fact, remember that pic of God Of War 3 you showed me? Yeah, remember that flower poking out from the ground? I believe that was 2D! Look at the roses in Fable 2, outside Reaver's mansion. They're fully 3D and look great even if you rotate the camera so that it takes up the whole screen!

Hey Alan, this is you:



lol jk man

Btw we've swayed from the original point, which was me saying Fable 3 deserves a decent graphics score. Well let's see what one of the most trusted critic sites, IGN, has to say:

9.0 Graphics
Occasional frame-rate jitters are easy to forgive against the stellar art design, delivering such a richly-detailed, beautifully-cohesive world.

HA - HA - HA

IGN is pretty tech savy. They declared that the PS3 version of GTA4 was superior to the X360 version.

Besides, why do you care THIS much about TRF giving his own personal opinion about the graphics. I found TRF's review to be much more professional than some of the ones I read on Metacritic. He listed all of the pros and cons of the game.

How do you know that, for that one subsection of the scoring, it wasn't based off of technicality AND art style. He gave it a 7.5 for graphics, which is pretty high considering the only good looking thing about it is it's art direction.

Even then, why do you care this much about graphics period. If this was a Gears of War review or an Uncharted review, then MAYBE I'd understand. But for games like Fable, Call of Duty, etc I NEVER pay this much attention to the graphics. I took one good glance at Fable 3 and noticed the ugliness and moved on. The game is just that amazing, and I for one think every "Xbox 360 fan" on this forum should give it a shot.

Fable = A game with great Art style. We can all agree on that. Now...........



Ignore the stupid part

Thanks, Alan. DemonWolf, you can argue about textures and whatnot, but do you know the best way to judge a game's graphics? LOOK AT THE DAMN GAME.

GeneralMLD wrote:

well written

Thank you. I'll do them more if I can. Speaking comes naturally to me, but writing is a little bit more difficult.

Alan1994 wrote:

IGN is pretty tech savy. They declared that the PS3 version of GTA4 was superior to the X360 version.

Besides, why do you care THIS much about TRF giving his own personal opinion about the graphics. I found TRF's review to be much more professional than some of the ones I read on Metacritic. He listed all of the pros and cons of the game.

How do you know that, for that one subsection of the scoring, it wasn't based off of technicality AND art style. He gave it a 7.5 for graphics, which is pretty high considering the only good looking thing about it is it's art direction.

Even then, why do you care this much about graphics period. If this was a Gears of War review or an Uncharted review, then MAYBE I'd understand. But for games like Fable, Call of Duty, etc I NEVER pay this much attention to the graphics. I took one good glance at Fable 3 and noticed the ugliness and moved on. The game is just that amazing, and I for one think every "Xbox 360 fan" on this forum should give it a shot.

Yes. They are but they still gave Fable III a good graphics rating. That's all I care about. It deserved what it got. I said Fable's graphics deserve at least 8. IGN US gave it 8, IGN UK gave it 9. So I can't complain.

I just think people are unfair about so many games' graphics. Fable is so good looking, I can't see why anyone would give it lower than 8.

Stoney wrote:

Fable = A game with great Art style. We can all agree on that. Now...........



Ignore the stupid part

lol true dat. But also nice plants and stuff

[quote="TRF"]Thanks, Alan. DemonWolf, you can argue about textures and whatnot, but do you know the best way to judge a game's graphics? LOOK AT THE DAMN GAME.

Erm, sorry but you've confused yourself. You were the one saying that it looks muddy up-close. I said ignore that and look at the game the way it is.
Dang, it's impossible to argue with anyone here because throughout the debate they change sides