A new land?

[ni.ck]

I personally would like to see more towns and villages, does anyone else feel the same way?

[triline beta]

Logically, there has to be more towns, or at least the existing ones made bigger, because a civalazation of peole, no matter the circomstances, will grow larger, and a lager population means more people, and more poeple mean more aor bigger cities. personally I think that there should be more towns/cities.

[ni.ck]

Yeah, I very much agree. With bigger towns would mean more things to do.

[Mephisto]

Yeah there has to be more towns and villages, they should keep the old map from befor just make it a lot lot bigger with more scenery.

Mephisto

[superbob263]

I think they should populate darkwood

[ni.ck]

As in with Humans in tents? Or like a Balverine Shelter?

I also think a Zoo would be cool, all differnt monsters across the land are there, and you must pay to go in and kill monstors

[ashes2233]

Originally Posted by ni.ck

As in with Humans in tents? Or like a Balverine Shelter?

I also think a Zoo would be cool, all differnt monsters across the land are there, and you must pay to go in and kill monstors

I havent been to a zoo in the while but im pretty sure that you dont go in them to kill things however a zoo quest could be good-like capturing the animals in traps etc. or there could be another arena to kill the things

and also another land is needed if the game is going to be any longer as it was tiny in the first game really compared to simalar RPG's like oblivion

[triline beta]

Originally Posted by ashes2233

I havent been to a zoo in the while but im pretty sure that you dont go in them to kill things however a zoo quest could be good-like capturing the animals in traps etc. or there could be another arena to kill the things

and also another land is needed if the game is going to be any longer as it was tiny in the first game really compared to simalar RPG's like oblivion

You could always take out you gun and kill them...and then the guards that would come to stop the mad man(a.k.a. you)

They had better not make this like Oblivion!!!! Oblivion sucks!

[mr_sir]

Originally Posted by ashes2233

I havent been to a zoo in the while but im pretty sure that you dont go in them to kill things however a zoo quest could be good-like capturing the animals in traps etc. or there could be another arena to kill the things

and also another land is needed if the game is going to be any longer as it was tiny in the first game really compared to simalar RPG's like oblivion

I'd like it if there are various different islands/continents you can travel to during quests, possibly by boat. Each one could have an arena that offers different challenges - one could be just beasts that you fight, one could be like a gladiator arena where you fight nobody but other heroes, and so on.

I also think that they should make it so its free roaming (i.e. you can go anywhere in the land rather than just set paths). If they did this, then the land would not necessarily have to be bigger as you'd be able to explore more of it (like in games such as Morrowind where you can pretty much go wherever you please).

[Lady Dragonfly]

The linear path is made to correlate monster toughness with your char's level.
Easier buggers in the begining of the path, nastier in the end.
It is given. Elder Scrolls have a different approach: as you level-up you encounter tougher opponents everywhere. I think both approaches are valid.

I would like to see a bigger realm, with political intrigue that you can't guess within first ten minutes. Maybe two kingdoms that are on the brink of a war. It is cool to travel between two different countries to uncover a plot within plot within plot while shady and prominent characters on both sides try do backstab, poison and seduce you.

[mr_sir]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

The linear path is made to correlate monster toughness with your char's level.
Easier buggers in the begining of the path, nastier in the end.
It is given. Elder Scrolls have a different approach: as you level-up you encounter tougher opponents everywhere. I think both approaches are valid.

My biggest complaint with Fable is that this was not the case. Like the Gothic games, the ending monsters/enemies were ridiculously underpowered. By being able to roam freely, you have the option to do what you like, but quests can guide you to places suited for your level but do not stop you from tackling harder places if you so choose (like they do in the Baldur's Gate games)

[Turkey Chaser]

Originally Posted by ni.ck

As in with Humans in tents? Or like a Balverine Shelter?

I also think a Zoo would be cool, all differnt monsters across the land are there, and you must pay to go in and kill monstors

i think a zoo would be cool,you pay to go in,watch the monsters,and read about their history,strenghs and weaknesses.

and yeah if you get bored reading you can jump into the cage and kill them all!

and the idea of a quest that you catch monsters with traps(or however)is a good one
after you catch them you go to the owner and get your reward...

and after your done talking to the owner you can kill him and take the zoo as your own!!!
muhahaha!!!

[Lady Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by mr_sir

My biggest complaint with Fable is that this was not the case. Like the Gothic games, the ending monsters/enemies were ridiculously underpowered. By being able to roam freely, you have the option to do what you like, but quests can guide you to places suited for your level but do not stop you from tackling harder places if you so choose (like they do in the Baldur's Gate games)

This is an example of a poor implementation so to speak, not the principle itself. Anyway, a game with constantly respawning monsters gives a good opportunity to power-up so the final task might be perceived relatively easy. Take Diablo, Sacred, Titan Quest, Dungeon Siege etc. How much challenge did you get in the end? In Gothic Gold the final task is not that easy now by the way. And Fable finale is not so pathetic either in my humble opinion. It is just not very interesting.

Honestly, I don't recall a game where I could not beat a boss. And you know what? We are supposed to win. And for me the uber-difficult boss is not a hallmark of a good RPG/adventure game. I have different criteria but it is just me.

As to personal preference, I agree, free-roaming style versus arcade is more appealing to me. The same way as BG-type adventure is more appealing than "action-adventure" clone. But it is good to have variety.

[mr_sir]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

Honestly, I don't recall a game where I could not beat a boss. And you know what? We are supposed to win. And for me the uber-difficult boss is not a hallmark of a good RPG/adventure game. I have different criteria but it is just me.

I don't like games with near impossible bosses to kill, but I do prefer it if they take more than 1 minute to kill. With the respawning, they can include that in a free-roaming world, only there is more scope for a bit of variety in a free roaming world instead of just endless bandits and hobbes as there will be a wider area to be inhabited by weird and wonderful monsters to fight.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I agree, variety of all kinds makes life interesting.
I played Fable relatively long time ago but I am pretty sure it took me more than one minute to win in the end. Later I attempted to replay but it was rather boring... If they would make a sequel I will play it.

And let it be a beautiful free-roaming world with lots of chicken to kick!!!