Is the Fable series worth playing?

[Malpercio]

As title say.

Not expecting much, is it worth if looking for a relaxing, no brainer open-world rpg?

 

[Eyeball]

Only played the first one but I'd definitely say yes. The character look customisation is kind of hilarious and it has some very nice Visuals and OK combat. Don't expect too much, but it's well worth your time.

 

[Excidium]

Fable 3 is shit

 

[GreyViper]

Fable 2-3 are shit. First TLC, is mixed bag so to say. Starts out cuddly and happy, later turns grim dark mood vise. Oh I must get it out of my chest "You dont know jack about JACK" . If you haven't played the series stick to first one TLC and dont try the others to see the the decline of the series.
Tough it did drive me in murderous carnage that they kept calling me names like chicken shit, it was their fault, pure C&C here.

 

[Angelo85]

I didn't particularly enjoy any of the Fable games to be honest. Other RPGs in the no brainer open-world cruise control department... hm that's actually a tough one! How about the later Elder Scrolls games like Skyrim or Oblivion? Level scaling ensures you'll never encounter any real challenge whatsoever and they are decent in the GFX department.
I didn't play Kingdoms of Amalur but from what I understand it pretty much fits the bill as single player, yet MMO-like RPG lite.

If you don't mind something a little older, Dungeon Siege 1 and 2 gameplay is very relaxing/passive as well.
Some Dungeon Siege 1 Gameplay (without annoying commentator):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR8eSJHymts

That's from the start of the game, later you'll get a party but during combat they all (including your main character if you wish) act pretty much on their own thanks to pre-set AI behavior controls.

 

[Kem0sabe]

As title say.

Not expecting much, is it worth if looking for a relaxing, no brainer open-world rpg?

Plant an acorn, watch it grow into a tree, some pretty innovative gameplay... your in for a treat OP.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Give it a try, Chicken Chaser.

 

[Monocause]

no

EDIT: Seriously, one of the major innovations of the fable series is that it enabled you to communicate with people by farting. That's all you need to know about late Molyneux games.

It's just plain bad, might be enjoyable if you're very casual or not used to RPGs but if you're a seasoned veteran you will find no reason to like it.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

First one is buggy and messy pile of half implemented abilities and shit, but still better than the others. They get more polish with each title, yet significantly less content. By the 3rd instalment they've stripped away 90% of weapon types, npc interactions are limited to pushing x/y and watching a random animation play out, spells are narrowed down to 1 spell that comes in different colors, and the choices are between x(bad) and y(good) with the occasional middle choice.(A, I believe.)

Spoiler

Although 3 was funny in that Lionhead, with the help of statistics, trolled their own fans by making the bad choices lead to the good ending.

Games have got some good voice talent though, a couple of laughs, if you like limeys and juvenile crap that is.

 

[undecaf]

The first one (on PC) worth a runthrough. It's the kind of lighthearted game where you don't really feel bad if you miss out on something, and once it ends, it's easy to set aside without too much rage or "wow".

 

[Whisky]

First one is bad and from what I hear the rest are even worse. Don't bother.

 

[Sranchammer]

Watch on youtube

 

[StaticSpine]

First one is rather good.

 

[Ninjerk]

Play first one

 

[J_C]

The first one is a fun rpg-lite, that is the only one worth playing.

 

[Crane]

Not really. I liked the first one back when it came out, so maybe try the Anniversary edition. Fable 2 was terrible in almost every way, stock fantasy story, bad combat, it goes on. Fable 3 had a good premise, but the latter half of the game fell flat on its face.

 

[Xor]

The first Fable has numerous problems - the story isn't even worth paying attention to, the balance is awful (get one AOE spell and you just won the game, congrats), the combat is repetitive and never exciting, the environments are incredibly linear, the social interaction makes your character out to be literally retarded, and there's nothing that stands out in the visuals or music. I can't even think of any positives to balance this out. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone ever. And Fable 1 is the best game in the series.

Take from that what you will.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

As title say.

Not expecting much, is it worth if looking for a relaxing, no brainer open-world rpg?

As someone who's played Fable 1-3, I'd say no.

Fable 2 was ok but not worth paying for.

 

[DalekFlay]

I only played 1 and 3 because 2 was never on PC. I recall liking the original as a fun simple little thing, but I wouldn't call it a good game. More like an amusing distraction that wears thin halfway through. Worth playing if you like the style of it.

I recall 3 being pretty terrible, mostly because of design flaws. Just not a well built game.

 

[SuicideBunny]

As title say.

Not expecting much, is it worth if looking for a relaxing, no brainer open-world rpg?

no. just... no.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Fable 1 was dull. Wasn't really that open either.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Not expecting much, is it worth if looking for a relaxing, no brainer open-world rpg?

Might be. But a search for "Amalur" under your name told me this:

Are we gonna do Non-sanctioned RPG Codex version of this too? I could be fun.

Anyway

Oblivion
Skyrim
Gothic 3
Dragon Age: Origins
Dragon Age 2
Mass Effect 2

There are others, like Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, but they just bored me, dunno if should consider them "teh worst"

If you didn't like Amalur, you'll probably won't like the Fables either. They're pretty similar.

 

[sea]

The first Fable is a fairly decent lighthearted action-RPG. It has some charm and interesting world simulation elements few other games do. On the other hand its combat and enemy diversity are kinda poor, it has really clunky menus/inventory/etc., and its world is very limited and linear, with little to no real exploration other than a few side paths. I enjoyed it at the time but I don't know if it's aged so well.

Fable 3 is better in some ways, mostly in offering a more wide-open world with more fun exploration. I also enjoyed several of the side-quests and the game still has much of the Fable charm intact. But, the game mechanics have been dramatically simplified to the point where calling it an RPG is extremely questionable, there's basically no challenge at all, and it has one of the most infuriating menus ever. Heck, it's even a pretty lengthy game compared to the first one, probably 30-40 hours to do everything.

Never played Fable 2 but some seem to think that, as far as gameplay goes, it's the best of the bunch. Overall though I have no strong love for the series, it's not bad at what it does, but what it does may not appeal to you if you want something deeper or more serious.

 

[Aeschylus]

Only tried the first one, a number of years ago. It was... forgettable? Nothing about it really stands out in retrospect as being particularly good or bad. Just generic. Most of the 'innovations' were cosmetic things, like your character aging as he gained XP, and maintaining scars and stuff.

 

[Average Manatee]

Play one of them just to see how far Molyneux has fallen.