Fable 3 cannot possibly upset me, because I learned my lesson after the first Fable and won't buy any more.
Fable 2 was very close to being the game that Fable 1 should have been. Since it's cheap now (can be had for less than your $20 threshhold), you really should pick it up. It's not very long (can be beat in 10 hours or less if you don't go for all the achievements or get all OCD about possessing every building in the game). Although honestly, the most fun in the game is had IF you're the OCD type that likes to unlock everything. Because there is a LOT of content in the game you can have fun with. I finally stopped after getting around 1180 of the possible achievement points. (I would've maxxed it out, but I just can't bring myself to play an evil character all the way through.)
__________________ There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and "to spec" gameplay footage.
- Benjamin Disraeli (paraphrased)
Fable 2 was very close to being the game that Fable 1 should have been.
I tried the Fable 2 demo. It was, in my view, a glorified series of fetch-centric quests, with hand-holding arrows/lines to boot, if memory serves. I disliked it immensely.
1) In a stunning turn of events Fable 3 takes place in 2347
2) Fable 3 will be only playable with Natal, and will only be sold as a $300 bundle
3) Peter Molyneaux still refuses to hire competent game testers
__________________
"You shutup, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you died or if your mother was eaten by a bear or something." - TheFlyingOrc
Wow, you mean no one stopped to think this was another Molyneux tag-line? Fable 2 made you feel sadness, Fable 3 will tick you off, and Fable 4 will make your wife Randy!
Seriously, no one is getting that except me (the tag line part, if Fable 4 makes my wife more Randy, i'll buy 100 copies of it day one!)?
__________________
Xbox360: DragonValiant Silence is golden, Duct Tape is silver.
DID YOU KNOW; The Portsmouth, UK Taxi driver license application is available in braille.
Why would a guy that is making video games in exchange for money intentionally want to upset his audience, the one he wants to buy his game?
I do not understand, I'm in the business of making money, when I'm about to do something where someone will make a choice, money vs no money. I'm gonig to do an awful lot to figure out exactly how to make the money option much more appealing. Maybe I'm boiling it down to too simple of a concept, but I do not understand why you would ever do this.
Its hard to believe they could make a game that sucks worse then the first two.
That being said, making it require Natal would piss people off. Maybe they will make it part of the package, and the game will cost 100 dollars or whatever it would be with Natal packed in minus roughly ten bucks or so.
__________________
PSN & Steam: shadow763 XBOX Live: clearedmoss
Why would a guy that is making video games in exchange for money intentionally want to upset his audience, the one he wants to buy his game?
Because he wants to move the series in another direction that he thinks will make a better game but will also make audiences (who are infamously leery of change) upset.
