The third game in the Fable series sets you with the task of overthrowing your own brother, the tyrant ruler of Albion, as the kingdom enters the industrial era.
@SeriouslyNow: At least i present my arguement, you still refuse to clearly define what exactly makes an RPG in your own terms other than "There be numbers."
@Trylks: You mean the pretty good stealth action game that is completely linear outside of "Which city would you like to go to next?" and "Maybe you want to take out this guy first instead of this other guy?"
No. No it is not.
You are missing the entire point of my argument. Assassin's Creed, both of them in fact, centers around a character that you have no power to alter. The path is set. You progress through missions to see more of the story, not to take part in it. That is the defining factor.
What people don't seem to understand is that the combat system doesn't determine whether or not something is an RPG. For the longest time the standard was a battle system built around the principles that games like DnD built because that was simply the trend and it was much easier to do than true character interaction due to the fact that everything is being governed by a computer "AI" instead of an real human being.
What we saw with Fable and it's successor was not role playing in the sense of a statistically based combat system or depth of character interaction, that's Bioware territory; what we saw with Fable, and indeed with Fallout to a degree as well, was persistent world interaction that is hard to find outside of the digital realm. What Fable did was pluck key concepts like economy, town building, etc.; reduced them; and then combined those parts into a world in which events actually mattered.
@LordXavierBritish: OK, so lack of linearity is a key element of RPGs for you, I guess. I think sandbox games and RPG games are orthogonal concepts. The same about persistent modifications of the world, sim city is not an RPG, but nvm. Let's try to describe them better. Is FFXIII an RPG? What about Red Dead Redemption?
Quid pro quo. For me a key element in RPGs are numbers, the damage, hit points, mana power, and several statistics like strenght, speed, intelligence and many more have numbers associated. And then you have the modifiers, like the gloves that will give you +2 dexterity or the armor that will give +5 defense but -2 speed. Deciding and choosing is a key element to build a character.
Fable is becoming less and less of an RPG, to the extent that I'd say it has some RPG elements and dynamics, but taking out the numbers and some stuff that didn't make it's way from the 2D GUI to the treasure room, it's not an RPG any more. This doesn't mean it is bad in any way, I'm in my second walkthrough in fable ii and I'll be getting fable III in a far future (I've a long wishlist ahead).
@Trylks: I might call Red Dead an RPG if it wasn't for the fact that story is fairly set in stone. I might call the multiplayer open world an RPG because it is, at the very least, a perfectly legitimate set of tools for role playing.
I don't know why you think numbers have anything to do with making an RPG though.There are plenty of pen and paper RPGs that don't use numerical battle systems, some don't use battle systems at all, yet the legitimacy of these products is never called into question. Numbers were always a substitute for real action. Now that both the realtime combat, character building, and interactive story telling aspects of the RPG can be replicated simultaneously in the virtual realm I think that the definition of what most people consider to be an RPG is going to have to change as video games come closer and closer to replicating their living ancestors.
I think the real issue here is that the definition of what an RPG is has always been very malleable, but to people that are generally video game players only their idea of what that definition is has not had many challengers within their purview.
I have to agree with Lord British on this one, the mechanics people often cite as evidence of 'roleplaying' could also be related to the strategy genre, just as dice and stats can be found in table-top wargaming as well as D&D. It seems meaningless to call menu-surfing in random encounters (as in JRPGs) or planning out battle tactics in a game like Baldur's Gate as significant for the definition of roleplaying. Many of the conventions of the RPG genre are tied to past technological limitations and thus the failure to realise the experience of role-playing provided by pen-and-paper games. It seems more meaningful to reserve the concept of role-playing for persistent interaction with the environment and communities, the ability to play a role and alter the narrative in some way or another, etc. The rolling of dice, stats, etc. are not confined to the RPG genre, nor do they have to be a constititutive part now that technology allows for more complex AI behaviour and narratives. Fable II might be a crappy game, but it's not a poor example of role-playing per se.
LOL. An interactive story is not a role playing game. In Fable II there is but one role, the adventurer, and all the other shit is cosmetic. That's not an RPG and frankly anyone who thinks it is is fucking retarded.
Once you make all the mechanics of an RPG experience redundant then you can no longer call said experience an RPG.
I don't think that Fable III becomes a worse or better game as it discards more RPG aspects, I just don't think it's an RPG because it isn't. It's an Adventure Game as were the previous games.
Simply put when it comes to combined Action and RPG experiences only one game has ever really married them properly and that game is Deus Ex. It remains a true RPG while being action oriented because there are always multiple ways to approach each enemy/area/mission, each choice you make with NPCs can have different consequences later on in the game and there are multiple endings all of which can be reached via a combination of different choices made and different approaches taken all based on what stats, loot and experience you have earned or taken. Every other Action RPG is either more action or more RPG oriented but they all only have ONE ending, regardless of what cosmetic differences there may be in the way the story is told. A true RPG experience does not have only one ending, unless we're talking about stats oriented RPG-lite (often misnamed JRPG) dungeon crawlers.
@SeriouslyNow: Ad hominems replace argument every time when you're involved it seems. But to move past ad hominem to actual argument. In every tabletop game I've ever played I've been an adventurer. Guess I've been doing it wrong? Anyway, what constitutes a roleplaying experience is subject to debate. Mechanically, Fable II is to a significant extent an action-adventure game. That doesn't mean it cannot also include roleplaying. More logic fail is your notion that I identify interactive storytelling with an RPG. I don't, I said it is an aspect and if asked to explain would relate it to interaction with other characters and communities, which Fable II has (in an ambitious if unsuccessful way). For instance, in Fallout 1 and 2 your actions affect a specific communities attitude towards you: that's a mechanic that I would call specifically RPG. Not stats-heavy action or strategy mechanics which are definitionally excluded from being foundational to the genre: they are foundational to others.
@LordXavierBritish said: Thus, if red dead redemption had three endings that would make of it an RPG? and I guess FFXIII is not an RPG since it is so linear, Golden Sun is not an RPG, Luminous Arc is not an RPG, Army of Two is an RPG and Heavy Rain is another one. As I say, the linearity of games is unrelated with games being RPGs or not. I think I understand the concept of RPG you have and I think the common idea of RPG is quite different, I don't know why should it change, obviously it hasn't changed yet, and by the actual convention, Fable is moving away from the RPG genre.
The numbers I mentioned are the statistics of the characters, that's what builds characters, customizes them, setting the focus on the character (not the story), playing the role of that character is what defines an RPG. It would be great to have classes in fable, that would fit perfectly the "choices" aspect, you choose to use the sword and you become a swordman, you choose to use the magic and you become a mage, you choose to use both and you become a paladin, without boundaries among classes, that would be another RPG element to add in Fable. Classes, you play the role of a character, the character has a class, the character is deeper, the game is more focused on the character.
Instead of that, Molyneux wants everybody to experience every aspect of the game, and he considers sad to finish the game just by killing all enemies with the lightning, which is fairly possible and probably the easiest and simplest way to do that, and indeed very sad, but a consequence of the simplification of magic, if using magic was deeper that wouldn't be any sad. Giving the players several options to choose and build their characters while keeping those options balanced is a hard task, fundamental for MMORPGs, because players will be fighting with or against many other players, so good examples of this are WoW and Guild Wars.
Maybe character costumization will be focused on clothes and hairstyles in future RPGs, until now character customization has been focused on customization related to aspects that wire deep in the gameplay, like the damage dealt or the damage that can be absorbed by a character, and this cosmetic changes have been orthogonal to that being present in games along many genres. Besides, character evolution and specialization have taken precedence over customization, for instance in games where to some extent you play the role of a group of characters (like most, but not limited to, tactical RPGs).
The focus in fable is different from what RPGs are and use to be, thus, by convention (and don't make me invoke to Wittgenstein) it's moving away from RPG to action-adventure since the market share it can get there is bigger, not a problem, just a fact.
" @SeriouslyNow: Ad hominems replace argument every time when you're involved it seems. But to move past ad hominem to actual argument. In every tabletop game I've ever played I've been an adventurer. Guess I've been doing it wrong? Anyway, what constitutes a roleplaying experience is subject to debate. Mechanically, Fable II is to a significant extent an action-adventure game. That doesn't mean it cannot also include roleplaying. More logic fail is your notion that I identify interactive storytelling with an RPG. I don't, I said it is an aspect and if asked to explain would relate it to interaction with other characters and communities, which Fable II has (in an ambitious if unsuccessful way). For instance, in Fallout 1 and 2 your actions affect a specific communities attitude towards you: that's a mechanic that I would call specifically RPG. Not stats-heavy action or strategy mechanics which are definitionally excluded from being foundational to the genre: they are foundational to others. "
What? In D&D you roll for class, alignment and the rest. There's none of that in any tangible sense in the Fable series, save for some extremely simple YES/NO choices near the start of the game which really only affect alignment and that's mostly for cosmetic reasons.
Don't take the word Adventurer out of context just so you can think yourself correct. There are many classes with multiple alignments in Table Top games whereas Fable only gives you one with two possible alignments and those alignments have little baring on the story and serve more to deign how your character (and dog) will look. I have said multiple times in this thread that Fable II does indeed included some LIGHT RPG mechanics. That doesn't make it, by proxy, an RPG, just as GTA : SA isn't an RPG either. GTA: SA is an Action game with some light RPG mechanics for weapon play. You should read my posts in this thread before you assume what I mean and especially when you assume it's directed @ you. Did you see my post in your inbox? No. So chill.
Fallout 1 and 2 are RPGs with a tactical combat focus, but very clearly sold as and marketed as RPGs. Of course your alignment and decisions made affect who you can talk to and where you can go in Fallout 1 and 2. I don't see your point, if you actually have one.
There's a lot of legwork to making a proper action RPG experience and Fable II just doesn't have enough of that to make the world have enough depth or be believable enough (all the NPCs are essentially variations on the same theme) to warrant being called an RPG. It's an Action Adventure game which is light on both and it includes some extremely simple RPG mechanics, most of which have no bearing on character or story development, aside from some slightly differing cosmetic alignment aspects.
Once again, having some mechanics at play in a game does not make that game fit the genre of those mechanics. Many games have light RPG aspects and yet many, like Fable II, are not RPGs. You certainly wouldn't call MW2 or the Battlefield games RPGs, yet they have Weapons Stats and Classes.
@SeriouslyNow: Interactive storytelling is the basis of fucking role playing. That's why it's called role playing and not number battles. You seem to point that out later in your post, so I have no idea why you would even say that really.
Just because Fable never out and out says "YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO BECOME THIS CLASS AS OPPOSED TO ANOTHER" doesn't mean you aren't building a character. The cosmetic aspect is simply showing towards which karmal sphere you are leaning. You can be a tyrant or kindly king depending on how you rule a town. You can be a mage, warrior, or rogue of many different types depending on how you play your character
You must have very little imagination if you require the game to tell you everything about your character. You must not have gotten into RPGs until like the fucking PS2 era or earlier on the PC.
@Trylks: I don't think the number of endings has anything to do with a game being an RPG or not. For instance I don't think GTA IV is an RPG, and that is simple because Nico Belic is not a character that you build up as a person. He has his own motives and experiences and in the end you really don't get to decide his fate outside of a few major choices. Heavy Rain is definetly not an RPG either, it's a movie with buttons. I wrote a very scathing article in which I covered some of this once, I won't pull it up now but the main point is that it isn't an RPG if you aren't developing a character and interacting with the world. As long as you have either of those aspects then I think that you can consider it an RPG.
The reason I think the gamer's view of what constitutes and RPG is so warped is because the earliest console RPGs tried to replicate DnD and other games almost to the letter but couldn't manage the interactive storytelling bits so they had to focus on combat. Even looking back at the original Final Fantasy and its brethren it's plainly obvious what they were trying to go for but couldn't quite accomplish. I struggle to find a proper term for never "JRPGS", but it's difficult. I suppose strategy game is the correct term, but it's hard to call games like FXIII RPGs when a role really isn't being played at all.
Also I don't know where you are getting this "No Classes" thing at. The classes in Fable were dynamically generated. Was it simple? Yes. Could you pretty much max out most of the good shit eventually? Yes. There was a development system though, you can't just ignore that.
And let's look at this statement for a moment. "What RPGs are and used to be,". Now when exactly does "used to be" begin? If we are to truly look at role playing games, what they are and have been, then it is the very games you defend that defy the conventional method.
As for Fable III, well it has yet to be seen but I doubt that Lionhead is going to simply drop what has been the fucking flag ship concepts of the series up to now.
" @SeriouslyNow: Interactive storytelling is the basis of fucking role playing. That's why it's called role playing and not number battles. You seem to point that out later in your post, so I have no idea why you would even say that really.
Just because Fable never out and out says "YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO BECOME THIS CLASS AS OPPOSED TO ANOTHER" doesn't mean you aren't building a character. The cosmetic aspect is simply showing towards which karmal sphere you are leaning. You can be a tyrant or kindly king depending on how you rule a town. You can be a mage, warrior, or rogue of many different types depending on how you play your character
You must have very little imagination if you require the game to tell you everything about your character. You must not have gotten into RPGs until like the fucking PS2 era or earlier on the PC. "
I want depth in an RPG. Fable II lacks any. Simple as that. ANY game has some measure of Interactive Storytelling. Fable II's take is just shit at the process. There's no depth to it at all. You do not build a character in Fable II with any depth, save for cosmetic appearance.
If you think Molly gives a rat's arse about what his fans expect you just don't know the man or his works since he formed Lionhead. He is caught continually lying about and subtracting key selling points from his games since Black and White. Don't assume Fable III will be an RPG at all.
Seriously, look that shit up. It will depress you.
@LordXavierBritish: the no classes comes from an interview with Molyneux where he states he wants players to experience everything in fable III and not to focus on one spell, I've searched for it, but search engines suck for videos.
Since the term RPG has been used for games like JRPGs I think you should use a different term to refer to interactive storytelling games to avoid misunderstandings. AFAIK sandbox is the most similar to the concept you are proposing, but you should know better.
Besides, interactive storytelling will never get achieved in video games as it was in board role playing games, unless the programmers don't set any story at all but the rules of an universe and let the story to emerge, similar to the movement of characters in spore. Despite of that, every interaction with the world has to be programmed previously, so no way there is going to be a master deciding what happens when you come with some weird idea. Video games in all genres are becoming richer wrt what can be done in their respective worlds, I still don't know why would someone want to open and close the tap in a game like mafia II, but that's something you can do, despite of that, there will always be boundaries and limits to what can be done in video games as opposed to traditional role playing games, unless the master is a moron, but then I'd suggest you to play with a different master, because the whole point of interactive story telling is to have that freedom that cannot be achieved in videogames, which have better graphics, more action, soundtrack and many other good things.
So I guess Mafia II is an RPG for you. It would be interesting if you could come with a good definition and a good name for the concept you have in mind and tag the corresponding games in the site, that could be useful for the people that share your perspective so as to find other games like whatever you are thinking about.
@SeriouslyNow: If you've been reading all of my posts then I've given clear examples of games that have no interactive storytelling, in fact I think a few people have. I won't bore you with examples, reading is half the fun.
Also yeah, you build a character in combat through the weapons and magic you use. That's what the colored spheres were.
You can also control the state of various towns buy buying and selling properties and setting the prices at businesses.
And I don't care about what Peter Monopoly has done in the past, that isn't evidence that Fable III is going to be a radical departure and it's kind of besides the point since it has nothing to do with this particular argument and I also kind of don't give a shit about Fable III right now.
" @SeriouslyNow: If you've been reading all of my posts then I've given clear examples of games that have no interactive storytelling, in fact I think a few people have. I won't bore you with examples, reading is half the fun. Also yeah, you build a character in combat through the weapons and magic you use. That's what the colored spheres were. You can also control the state of various towns buy buying and selling properties and setting the prices at businesses. And I don't care about what Peter Monopoly has done in the past, that isn't evidence that Fable III is going to be a radical departure and it's kind of besides the point since it has nothing to do with this particular argument and I also kind of don't give a shit about Fable III right now. "
Thanks again for explaining how the character development in Fable II works. That still doesn't make it a good game or a proper RPG.
Also, why are you even in this thread if you don't give a shit about Fable III? That's the whole purpose of the discussion.
Molyneux should basically just have his OBE taken away from him at this point. The Queen told me she'd 'rather pick up corgi shit than pick up Fable 3', and I am inclined to agree with her.
" Molyneux should basically just have his OBE taken away from him at this point. The Queen told me she'd 'rather pick up corgi shit than pick up Fable 3', and I am inclined to agree with her. "
" @SeriouslyNow: If you've been reading all of my posts then I've given clear examples of games that have no interactive storytelling, in fact I think a few people have. I won't bore you with examples, reading is half the fun. Also yeah, you build a character in combat through the weapons and magic you use. That's what the colored spheres were. You can also control the state of various towns buy buying and selling properties and setting the prices at businesses. And I don't care about what Peter Monopoly has done in the past, that isn't evidence that Fable III is going to be a radical departure and it's kind of besides the point since it has nothing to do with this particular argument and I also kind of don't give a shit about Fable III right now. "
Thanks again for explaining how the character development in Fable II works. That still doesn't make it a good game or a proper RPG. Also, why are you even in this thread if you don't give a shit about Fable III? That's the whole purpose of the discussion. "
You brought me back into it after a month, so I would assume you had a good reason.
And if you don't want me to keep explaining how character development in Fable II works stop saying there is no fucking character development.
" @SeriouslyNow: If you've been reading all of my posts then I've given clear examples of games that have no interactive storytelling, in fact I think a few people have. I won't bore you with examples, reading is half the fun. Also yeah, you build a character in combat through the weapons and magic you use. That's what the colored spheres were. You can also control the state of various towns buy buying and selling properties and setting the prices at businesses. And I don't care about what Peter Monopoly has done in the past, that isn't evidence that Fable III is going to be a radical departure and it's kind of besides the point since it has nothing to do with this particular argument and I also kind of don't give a shit about Fable III right now. "
Thanks again for explaining how the character development in Fable II works. That still doesn't make it a good game or a proper RPG. Also, why are you even in this thread if you don't give a shit about Fable III? That's the whole purpose of the discussion. "
You brought me back into it after a month, so I would assume you had a good reason. And if you don't want me to keep explaining how character development in Fable II works stop saying there is no fucking character development. "
I don't control you, or do I? heh
I merely strongly disagreed with your point of view on what 'role playing' is with regards to RPGs. Meanwhile you keep coming back and talking about a game you don't give a shit about.
You can keep explaining it until the cows come home but Fable II has no depth of character development. I never said it has none at all, it just lacks enough to be called an RPG.
@valrog: I'll try to watch the series again, but in the original version, not in the top of my toDo list, though. If I watched them alone I'd watch them all in OV, not the case so far. To me Sawyer from Lost and Fry from Futurama have the same voice, (with a very different tone, fortunately).
Man I just want them to fix the movement controls. I hate having it feel like I'm drifting around corners when running somewhere. Actually the controls have been my biggest beef with the series ever since Fable 1.
I'll still play Fable 3 as an acceptable substitute to crack though.
Fable is about creating a small world built around persistence and consequence, and Fable II largely succeeded in that respect. Every single NPC is it's own unique identity with it's own thoughts and feelings on your actions, and its own likes and dislikes. When Fable II was first released, this was kind of a big fucking deal.
I disagree... every NPC looked and sounded the same. Some people hearted when you played the farting animation and some people had negative hearts.
I actually don't understand why people hate Fable. Even after reading the explanations provided, I just don't think a good argument against the games has been made.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment