Fable 2 Not As Visually Impressive As You'd Expect.

I really don't understand where the hype for this game's graphics came from. It's not that impressive, really. There are plenty of games that are more impressive than this that are already out. It's pure fanboyism.

I'm not saying that's its an ugly game, but it's not nearly as great as some people make it out to be.

just to clear things up, for those who keep bashing the graphics through the screens, watch this vid and then u can talk

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30973.html

p00nster

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30762.html

I like this one better.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="p00nster"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]IF you take a trip over to Gametrailers and watch the HD vids.. Fable looks pretty Damn good. It won't be winning any awards but it looks a lot "smoother" than a lot of the titles I've seen this gen. Hey, as long as it looks impressive and has a Rock solid framerate, I'm good. OhSnapitz

this guys right, these screens dont do the videos justice, so everybody complaining about the screens, go watch the gametrailers videos. Also, most people who are bashing fable 2s graphics are people who never owned or played fable. They just think that because of all the hype and letdown, that the game must have been crap but despite the shortcomings, fable was a fun game with its own art and charm that these bashers never experienced.

Or we did and thought it was average, as my Xfire clearly shows that I have ...

Somehow that statement doesn't hold alot of water.. *looks at sig*

Try clicking, it takes you to a wonderouse page that gives you the bigger picture ;o

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Antikyth3ra"] love WoW but you can't compare these games graphically. WoW has SOME art direction but very little due to it being an MMO lots of huge open dull areas due to large amounts of people. Models are not that great and end game armor does look good but it isn't jaw dropping.Antikyth3ra

1. Im comparing WoW to fable 1 which came out BEFORE World Of Warcraft.

2. Diablo 2 was good back then it can't hold a feather to a game today.

3. Blizzard is great with gameplay. Visuals have never been a strong point. Great with cinematics tho.

This thread is all about Visuals. Fable 1 looks better then WoW and came out at the "same time". Diablo 2 does not translate well to present time (Hellgate London). Fable has great artistic feel. It is much like Tim Burton meets Shrek. You can not deny either of those of having great art.

Antikyth3ra

Technically, Fable 1 does look better than WoW. Artistically, no. Blizzard clearly invested lots of time in the game to maintain a cartoony look, but at the same time look very dark and edgy. Fable is just plain ugly.

[QUOTE="Killer_Wuggles"][QUOTE="Antikyth3ra"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Antikyth3ra"] love WoW but you can't compare these games graphically. WoW has SOME art direction but very little due to it being an MMO lots of huge open dull areas due to large amounts of people. Models are not that great and end game armor does look good but it isn't jaw dropping.Antikyth3ra

1. Im comparing WoW to fable 1 which came out BEFORE World Of Warcraft.

2. Diablo 2 was good back then it can't hold a feather to a game today.

3. Blizzard is great with gameplay. Visuals have never been a strong point. Great with cinematics tho.

1. Fable 1 came out in the same year as WoW. There's like a one-month gap between the two games.

2. Diablo 2 is an amazing game and still plays better than many RPGs, including Fable 1.

3. So I guess Starcraft 2 looks like total crap, huh? WoW is a game that looks beautiful artistically and has better art direction than Fable 2.

This thread is all about Visuals. Fable 1 looks better then WoW and came out at the "same time". Diablo 2 does not translate well to present time (Hellgate London). Fable has great artistic feel. It is much like Tim Burton meets Shrek. You can not deny either of those of having great art.

Your right VISUALS, but World of Warcraft is ALOT nice on the eyes, and has some really really cool models/landcsapes despite its techinical limites, Fable 1 ... was ana verage looking game both artistically and technically, it had no enphasis.

Art IS visual, Fable 2 again isnt strong in eitehr pursuit.

Hell, Starcraft 2 looks amazing on the eyes, Blizzard does this intentionally, so more people can play it as you are well aware, but they make up for it with amazing artstyles, which 100% count as visuals!

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="p00nster"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]IF you take a trip over to Gametrailers and watch the HD vids.. Fable looks pretty Damn good. It won't be winning any awards but it looks a lot "smoother" than a lot of the titles I've seen this gen. Hey, as long as it looks impressive and has a Rock solid framerate, I'm good. Meu2k7

this guys right, these screens dont do the videos justice, so everybody complaining about the screens, go watch the gametrailers videos. Also, most people who are bashing fable 2s graphics are people who never owned or played fable. They just think that because of all the hype and letdown, that the game must have been crap but despite the shortcomings, fable was a fun game with its own art and charm that these bashers never experienced.

Or we did and thought it was average, as my Xfire clearly shows that I have ...

Somehow that statement doesn't hold alot of water.. *looks at sig*

Try clicking, it takes you to a wonderouse page that gives you the bigger picture ;o

ok so u have played it, but thats just one of the many people who are against the game that actually have, and if u did watch the vids, u noe fable 2 looks impressive even if the original didnt live up to its hype.

Fable 2 is not intended to look realistic at all. Anyone that had played the first game would know this. The game clearly falls into the "art style" category for the graphics. It has a unique look to it that is great. Best ever? No.

As for the bloom effect being "too much", anyone who had played the first game would be well aware how much Fable loves it's bloom effects.

[QUOTE="CrimsonBlade360"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

In terms of graphics,

Crysis >>> Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank and GT5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fable 2

Kansrite

fable 2 look better than GT5????hopefully i am just missing the sarcasism in this statement look at some screens of GT5, the game is B-E-A-UTIFUL to quote jim carey

The more Fable 2 images that get posted, the worse the game starts to look.foxhound_fox

Yeah they are being posted so many times lol.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Taalon"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

It looks damn good for a console game, and the game footage looks better than frozen images.

Furthermore, it's pointless to compare any game to Crysis, since Crysis outshines them all. But that doesn't mean that if a game doesn't look like Crysis, it's "not that visually impressive."

Taalon

As a pc gamer my self who plays Crysis at high settings as well. The game looks fine.. It has its own ****and looks good for the stuff it was set out for.. I find it relatively rediculous to claim its not up to spunk when many would say WoW is a good looking game due to its art direction even though its extremely lower quality then other games.. Or what about Mario Galaxy? That game in my mind looked amazing as well. So does this one.. People have some awfully rediculous set standards for graphics.. Its starting to become quite sickening in all honesty.

[QUOTE="screamingdoom"]

And don't say nobody plays at those settings, cause it is possible to with SLI or Tri SLI (in fact I think you can play at 1920x1080 with tri sli).

Hewkii

actually, I play it 1080p at all high settings with one 8800 GTX.

Yeah I wasn't talking about high, I was talking about all settings on Very High DX10. My 8800 can survive at those settings playing at 720p, but I think to play the game at 1080p on DX10 very high settings, you'd need at least an sli setup to maintain a consistent, playable frame rate throughout the entire game.