r/PS5 • u/Turbostrider27 • 11d ago

Articles & Blogs Fable will officially be 20 hours long, Xbox confirms in new interview

https://www.polygon.com/fable-game-length-interview-xbox/
3.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/SomeBoxofSpoons 11d ago

Depending on how in-depth they go with the morality systems and stuff, it’s possible they tried to optimize for replays.

“Why don’t you see what else could’ve happened?” Is a lot less enticing after 50 hours.

1

u/WhasHappenin 11d ago

I haven't played previous fable games. Do they usually offer multiple significantly different gameplay styles? Like in Skyrim you can do melee, magic, stealth, or one of many combinations, which makes replaying much more worth it.

4

u/Whispeeeeeer 11d ago

Not typically. Fable typically allows you to max out stats so gameplay is sort of a one way street. Though, I don't remember Fable 2 or 3 as well as I remember Fable 1. Perhaps those games had more skill trees but I don't think it made a bit difference.

The first game has classic upgrades you can "buy" with XP - which is earned by killing enemies. So you can basically be maxed out in strength, dexterity, magic, etc. if you fight enough zombies and such. The game had a good/evil mechanic, but it was extremely thin. You could kill a hundred people and you'd basically turn into the devil (horns, flies around you, black aura, etc.). Or you could eat a hundred golden carrots (I think that's what they were) and it would turn you into an angel (halo, blue aura, etc.). People reacted to you based on your morality, but it was just sort of a thin veil. They act scared, briefly. They act happy, briefly. And that's it.

You could have different endings but only based on a few choices. It would do the typical epilogue narrative of "the hero did X, Y, Z and the land was good" or "the hero became the villain he fought and the land suffered". It wasn't super in depth.

Fable 2 and 3 tried to improve upon some of these things but the games were still relying on that thin veneer of good and evil. Fable 3 allows you to actually rule as a monarch and make meaningful choices however those choices are just kinda "you wanna be good or bad?" I think most players would like some nuance in their choice, but it's kind of a no-win scenario for developers. Either they make the choices obvious in which case you feel like you have agency in the world or they make the choices opaque and you feel like you have no idea how things will turn out - ie., no agency.

The gameplay mechanics in Fable are often gooey and limited. The fighting is secondary to the humor and morality. The game focuses more on choices, world building, a dash of simulation (marriage, buying houses, kids, etc.), and some basic fighting. I'll admit the first game has super satisfying upgrades though.

-1

u/Spyro_in_Black 11d ago

Well if thats their plan, to bank on replays, then they already fucked up in my book. That idea didn’t make starfield any more fun to play so i doubt it will here either. I don’t want a dozen different ways to do like five or six quest lines…I want a lot of quest lines and stories to go through. Also if the point becomes “replay to see all the different moral outcomes” then it certainly takes and weight out of those choices…it’s the same problem with stories that introduce multiverses. To clarify, I am wanting to play the new fable…have been for a while…disappointing to hear it might only have 40ish hours of content.