I recently played the new Traitor's Keep DLC for Fable III, and discovered that the best part by far happens in the first ten minutes. You are going about your ruling duties after saving Albion from the...whatever it was, and an assassin breaks into the throne room to kill you. Amidst the sounds of you repeatedly stabbing him as your royal guards catch him in a vicious cross-fire, he shouts some of the most sensible things I've ever heard from character in these games, mostly along the lines of "your blood does not entitle you to be a ruler; it just entitles you to throw fireballs. Now I will kill you to free Albion."
It got me thinking: He has a point. Being King/Queen of Albion is what we've been building up to for three games now. We're finally there. We're at the top. There is nowhere left to go but down. And that is why Fable must die.
Before I get really stuck into this, I must cover my ass: I have consistently enjoyed the Fable games, and harbour no negative feelings for Peter Molyneaux. The main criticism of the Fable games (apart from bugs) is that they're loaded down with pointless crap. That is true. But it is also true that the real world is loaded down with pointless crap (videogames, for instance). The Fable games are escapes to other worlds where you can be whoever you want to be. They just wouldn't be the same without the extra stuff; they wouldn't feel real enough. And I think that the reason people consistently vent against Peter Molyneaux for the games' shortcomings is because his reckless enthusiasm makes him the most salient member of Lionhead Studios. Basically, people hate him because he loves his job. That is not a legitimate reason to dislike someone. Not when there are so many people in the videogame industry whom I despise for being *ssholes who just want to grab my money and don't give a sh*t about making a decent game (I'm looking at you, Activision!). It takes more than one man to make a videogame; if there's something in a game that you don't like, there were about a hundred people making the game who did like it. Take it up with the whole studio, not just the director.
Right. Where do I start? Well, why don't I start at the beginning? Fable I. (Have you noticed that fantasy games all use Roman numerals in their sequels? Fable III, Dragon Age II, Elder Scrolls IV, Divinity II, Overlord II...I'm getting sidetracked.)
So, what made Fable 1 (eat it!) the "must-have" game when it came out? Well, I don't know about you, but I can tell you that what sold it to me was the morality system (I'm gonna be saying "morality system" a lot, so, "MS" for short). Having your character change to reflect your actions was something never done before on a console, and I suspect it was fairly new to PC users too. We all learned a few things from that game, like how much fun it is to be a bastard, and that the only hairstyle that looks good with horns is a ponytail. (Laughs? No? Not that funny? Scr*w you, then. Moving on.)
Anyway, the defining characteristic of the Fable games has been the MS. They can't escape it. It's haunting them. In fact, the MS is what's killing them.
Let's jump ahead now to Fable 3 (eat it again!). In Fable 1, the MS was fun because the consequences of your decisions were trivial, and they really only served to make you look more badass. In Fable 2, same story. But in Fable 3, we get into politcs. Suddenly, your decisions actually make a difference, and here the whole distinction between good and evil breaks down. You see, no MS allows for the existence of a "grey area" (although the people who make the show 'Extra Creditz' would tell you some interesting things about the tacit MS in 'Missile Command') where politics function. Indeed, a theoretical world of universal morals would have no need for politics, because all conceivable conflicts would be easilly resolved by every individual. Trying to fit a system of such complex decision making into a "black and white" moral paradigm is silly, to the point of absurdity. You end up with the situation that cutting down a forest is MORE morally reprehensible than taking to the streets to personally slaughter all of your subjects.
I appreciate that Lionhead Studios want to make games with more depth, and I applaud them for it. I say, "go for it, guys." But why am I also saying that Fable has to die? The answer is simple: Without the MS, it isn't a Fable game; with the MS, it can't improve. There is only one way forward: Leave Fable behind. Lionhead Studios cannot cross the desert of creativity, pursued by the monster of obscurity, while dragging their mentor behind them. ...Yes, I am deliberately making a reference to a moment from Fable 3. It was an extremely moving moment; I felt more connection to Walter than I have felt to a videogame character in a long time. I was truly saddened to leave him behind. I understand how Lionhead Studios feel, but based on that powerful experience, I can safely say that they are ready to move on and explore new territory. If they can pull that off again, they will be just fine.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you disagree with me. You say, "hey! They can keep making Fable games! Just drop the morality system!" ...Actually, this is pretty much the same issue I have with people who are getting excited about Duke Nukem Forever finally coming out. It's taken over a decade, and it's being made by a different developer: It's called "Duke Nukem Forever", but it is NOT the game they've been waiting for. You can call a game Fable 4, but without the MS, it simply isn't Fable.
Even if Fable 4 (IV) could be made, where would the story go? We've gone from the middle ages (with magic) to the industrial revolution (with magic). What's next? "Fable 4: Modern Warfare"? ...Actually...that sounds kinda awesome.... No, I find it far more likely that we'll finally leave Albion. Actually, we've already done that, haven't we? We went to Aurora. But then they joined the dominion of Albion, so it doesn't count.
That's another issue I have with the games recently. I feel like I'm playing through the English, wish-fulfillment version of history. I mean, no country has ever, ever, EVER requested the honour of becoming part of the British Empire. Historically, everyone's been trying to get out. (Oh Canada, motherf*ckers!) As a colonial, I feel a bit dirty bringing the Aurorans under my dominion. But I digress.
What I actually had in mind when I said "leave Albion" was a full-blown war with Samarkand. You know Samarkand? It's the country (fictional) to the east of Albion (arguably also fictional) from whence all the coolest sh*t in the Fable games comes. I've been wanting to crush Samarkand 'neath my conquering heel ever since I read the blurb on the Katana in Fable 1. I mean, Katanas! They've got Katanas! How cool is that?
But wait. You're the ruler of Albion - or, the United Kingdom, as it surely must now be called - and you're invading countries to the east. Would that still be a Fable game? Wouldn't that be...Europa Universalis? [ominous crash of thunder] Or worse. What if you take to the field of battle yourself? What if you charge into the fray at the head of your army? What if it's...Dynasty Warriors? (I like the Dynasty Warriors games, so this eventuality would be awesome for me, but for the rest of you, not so much.)
You see what I'm getting at here? The only way for the Fable games to move forward is to change so radically that they wouldn't be Fable games any more. Besides, it's pretty obvious that Lionhead want to move on to different projects. And you know what? We might get some great games out of them if they do. That would be no tragedy.
[tags: fable, fable 2, fable ii, fable 3, fable iii, fable 4, fable iv, lionhead, lionhead studios, molyneaux, peter molyneaux, duke nukem forever, europa universalis, dynasty warriors]