Portarock:

Fable2CantWait:

Alright, for those of you that are yelling at us 'complainers'. We have SUCH a reason. I agree with greenghost5. If we didnt *** and complain about features that will or will not be in fable 2, then there would be absolutley NO point for this forum.

Hmm I am guessing you meant Portarock there lol

greenghost5:

@ portarock

Are you trying to say that I'm stupid? I wasn't using that as an argument I was makeing a statement, there is a difference. I know what feedback is but, there becomes a point where a person just becomes annoyingly  obnoxious. So I like to be a smart a$$, and thell them don't buy it, then.

Nope, just saying that I think saying "then don't buy it" is stupid.

Oh okay. That's . I want to make myself clear on this matter. I am all for the bows being in this game, as well as the guns too. I just get annoyed when someone complains too much. I didn't ever say "oh you better never complain" I complain too, just not  ALL the time. I'm sorry if I  really offended anyone on here. I hope everyone can accept my aplogie, and know I am for bows being in this game. They are paramount to the balance, I think. anyways, This game is going to be awesome, even if the bows don't end up making it in, but after the big argument today about it, I would say that we have a much better chance of having them put back into the game.

---

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)

I would love for bows to be in the game, who cares if your at a disadvantage. Your outnumbered more than 75% of the time, so why not throw in one more challenge, people always complain about fable being to easy.

Somebody mentioned bows not fitting into the time period because guns were in the colonial period, well I'd say Fable 2 is pretty well into the colonial period, so if you don't like it then stop trying to get everybody else to hate it to.

---

The Chains of Destiny have broken, the gears are in motion. I am coming. I am Lord of The Shadows, all shall bow before me.
www.gameaces.com

wow what a rip id rather have a crappy for nothing bow and still do what i wanted then to be limited to just crossbows or guns. This made me not look forward to the game as much i mean bows is all i was looking forward to this just ruined my day so much for limitless possibility.  I mean come on I'm sure you could have put some sorta bow in it i don't see how it would not work even if they did crappy damage id still want to use them. I want to know why then "just don't work" you mean you could not code them right? or maybe u don't have time to put them in and its to late or something? this is total rubbish

Sigh... seriously not wanting to play Fable 2 just because there are no bows?

I mean common... in 15 years time what if fable 3 comes out and its set 5000 years later and we have bloody machineguns would you guys still be like;

 

“Where are the bows?”

“I want a bow”

“I don’t care if it’s not damage compared to a gun”

“Why ant it right for the time Fable 3 is set in”

 

To me the time line for weapons was like Bows --- Crossbows --- Guns

Fable 2’s theme is like The Highwaymen… right?

So what’s more affective “Stand and Deliver!!!” – With a bow or “Stand and Deliver!!!” – With a gun?

---

Shiningsoul:

Sigh... seriously not wanting to play Fable 2 just because there are no bows?

I mean common... in 15 years time what if fable 3 comes out and its set 5000 years later and we have bloody machineguns would you guys still be like;

 

“Where are the bows?”

“I want a bow”

“I don’t care if it’s not damage compared to a gun”

“Why ant it right for the time Fable 3 is set in”

 

To me the time line for weapons was like Bows --- Crossbows --- Guns

Fable 2’s theme is like The Highwaymen… right?

So what’s more affective “Stand and Deliver!!!” – With a bow or “Stand and Deliver!!!” – With a gun?

 

haha! i am so with you on that one, and love your witty sense of humor but yeh seriously people who are complaining bout not having bows read what shiningsoul put, it makes so much sense

---

Hehe well thank you Jontis_Pyro, I’m glad to have someone on my side

---

I get what your saying, but we wouldnt care if it was set 5000 years ahead, But during fable 2's time, bows would still be usefull. They are quiet and can do a lot of damage to people through stealth.

---

kevingleich91:

I get what your saying, but we wouldnt care if it was set 5000 years ahead, But during fable 2's time, bows would still be usefull. They are quiet and can do a lot of damage to people through stealth.

Exactly, we're not talking about "what if" scenarios...They WERE in the game before and suddenly the developers feel that they won't be useful...

My biggest gripe is, they still have Crossbows in the game...And like I've said a million times, casual gamers will not know the difference Bows and Crossbows...To them, it's just a different form of a ranged weapon...And Lionhead is very adament about catering to the casual gamer, so how does this help in any way??

It's like medium length swords and katanas...Both will probably have the same properties, so do the same for Bows and Crossbows...Lionhead keeps saying they aren't going for realism...FINE, then make Bows better than what they should be, faster reload animation, stronger damage, I mean, they make it seem like it's an impossible feat where some coding and keyframing can't remedy this problem...

And I'll say this right now, if they took out Katanas, all you ladies who are against some of us speaking out, would be absolutely FURIOUS at Lionhead...So don't talk about Bows not meaning much because that's not your weapon of choice...If they took out your favorite weapon, I highly doubt you'd be happy about the decision...

I wouldn't care about Katanas, I've never saw much use for them. I always stuck with the Longsword. I wouldn't be upset if LH took out longswords. There's always the rapier.

Maybe they will end up putting them back in. Like I said, I think they should be in for that particular balance against guns and crossbows.
If bows end up really not making it into the final game, then it will still be a great game to play. Who knows maybe you might like to use a gun, or the crossbow, you can't really tell until you play Fable 2 though.
The one thing I didn't like was that guns in Fable2 will apparently load as quickly as a seasoned sniper loads a bolt action rifle.

---

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)

awww man!!!! no bows :( I haven't been on this forum in a while, and I see this thread I started months ago about how bows are in the game (you can imagine how shocked I was)....

and then I read and read (all the bad news) then all the flaming!!

You guys need to calm down about the bows. I mean, yeh it sucks a lil bit, but you'll live. The main worry for me is what Rum said, about how they seem to be taking things out instead of making things better (or something along those lines).

To be honest I got all excited when the update was about bows. I was thinking "wow, I wonder what cool, next-gen thing they've done here with these bows"

Then I find out they've been taken out -_-

All I'm left wondering now, is what more are they gonna take out, and what are they adding in as a benefit. Were hearing alot about whats not gonna cut it (seafaring, bows) and some revamped features (combat, emotion) but not many new "next gen" features. It just worries me that the game doesn't seem to be moving forward at all.

Smalfie (and everyone else) we haven't "taken anything out" as you call it, don't look at it in a negative way. We are pushing the game forward in every possible way, we could have done the easy thing and just make bigger maps, more weapons and more quests. The world has moved on since you played the original Fable, obviously weapons are a part of that development. We said there were going to be bows, and if something doesn't fit, we change some things and we told you. There's bound to be a billion ideas about Fable 2, so you understand that some (if not a lot) will be left on the cutting floor. I hope that until the game goes out the door we are allowed to make changes?

But believe me, the team are working hard this week for yet another milestone (that's when a lot of us spend so much time in the office making this game that we EAT in the office (and even shower))! And it's a really exciting game to be involved with; there is just so much stuff. Behold until you get to hear about the full scale of this game. And the team are doing great (but they need extra candy)

You know that really is starting to sound ridiculous. Anytime the community reacts negatively to something Lionhead's reply is "well we could have taken the easy route and just made everything bigger and better but we aren't". What is the point of trying to be so so "innovative" if it is at the cost of everything else. We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, we get one button combat at the cost of control, we get a dog at the cost of being able to easily navigate without it, and now we get guns at the bows.

---

Thank you Ralph H. Baer

Sam:

Smalfie (and everyone else) we haven't "taken anything out" as you call it, don't look at it in a negative way. We are pushing the game forward in every possible way, we could have done the easy thing and just make bigger maps, more weapons and more quests. The world has moved on since you played the original Fable, obviously weapons are a part of that development. We said there were going to be bows, and if something doesn't fit, we change some things and we told you. There's bound to be a billion ideas about Fable 2, so you understand that some (if not a lot) will be left on the cutting floor. I hope that until the game goes out the door we are allowed to make changes?

A  follow up question to that might be 'why can't bows fit into the game'?  As one of the main 3 types of combat in Fable (crossbows not included in ranged because they were useless imo) you would think that there would be a way to make them useful in some way.  So if bows can't compete with guns in normal open combat then make bows useful for assassins, guns are loud but bows are silent so they work perfectly in that situation.  It doesn't bother me that bows got cut, what doesn't make sense is why they couldn't have been expanded upon so they would still be useful. 

At this point it seems like Portarock is right, the innovation of many of the games features seem to ruin others.  A great game needs innovation but it also needs existing features to evolve and become better, we have yet to see much of the latter.  Hopefully Fable 2 won't have so much innovation that it makes the game feel unfamiliar, if you take away the things that gamers know and enjoy Fable 2 won't be a success.  That might not be entirely accurate but that is the way it seems now.

---

Are you an ODST (fanboy)?

The bows aren't bothering me that much, it's the map that I'm focused on, but all you people who want them to change the bows to match the gun need to think about this, if they changed the bows they wouldn't be the same bows you loved from before, would they?

---

The Chains of Destiny have broken, the gears are in motion. I am coming. I am Lord of The Shadows, all shall bow before me.
www.gameaces.com

Portarock:

You know that really is starting to sound ridiculous. Anytime the community reacts negatively to something Lionhead's reply is "well we could have taken the easy route and just made everything bigger and better but we aren't". What is the point of trying to be so so "innovative" if it is at the cost of everything else. We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, we get one button combat at the cost of control, we get a dog at the cost of being able to easily navigate without it, and now we get guns at the bows.

Actually, you will find that the one button combat in Fable 2 will provide more control than, combat in Fable. It def. has more depth to it. Isn't that a part of innovation, though, the risk? I think that we can navigate without the dog, if we want to. We will be able to lose, sure we won't die but, we can lose exp. and gold. We can get scarring( personally, I like scars.)
We lose something, you see, all that hard earned gold, and/or exp. I hate having to redo a part of a mission or a quest, because I died. Of all of these, I am really staring to grasp how great the combat could be with the way LH is doing it. I'll get sort of a preview, if you will, when Assassins Creed come out.

---

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)

Portarock:

You know that really is starting to sound ridiculous. Anytime the community reacts negatively to something Lionhead's reply is "well we could have taken the easy route and just made everything bigger and better but we aren't". What is the point of trying to be so so "innovative" if it is at the cost of everything else. We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, we get one button combat at the cost of control, we get a dog at the cost of being able to easily navigate without it, and now we get guns at the bows.

How can you say that our innovation is at the cost of everything else Portarock, I mean that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. You get the "no game over screen" because it's not fun. Or as Dene Carter put it in the interview with Loinhead: "What we normally like to do is end up with a relatively kind of chaotic system, so lots of variables to play with, lots and lots of detail, but not so complex that if you pull this thing here it burgh and explodes and ruins the game completely, “there’s no food anywhere you’re just going to starve” because that’s no fun for anybody really. It’s much like the “the-entire-world-is-overrun-by-monsters-that’s-it-you’re-dead.” Game over. It’s possibly the most - the least compelling game over I’ve ever seen, well, I can’t be bothered doing that again then. So we’ll always try to make sure that everything moves back to an equilibrium if possible, where the game is still fun to play but we never try to go as far outside the bounds as we possibly can."

fablier:

A  follow up question to that might be 'why can't bows fit into the game'?  As one of the main 3 types of combat in Fable (crossbows not included in ranged because they were useless imo) you would think that there would be a way to make them useful in some way.  So if bows can't compete with guns in normal open combat then make bows useful for assassins, guns are loud but bows are silent so they work perfectly in that situation.  It doesn't bother me that bows got cut, what doesn't make sense is why they couldn't have been expanded upon so they would still be useful. 

Ok these bows are obviously a sensitive issue, and we haven't even released the game yet! Crossbows are also silent (or at least compared to a gun), you can do much cooler things with it (I mean, look at this type of crossbow to give but one example). We have two options here, either we make the bows fit the game and change them dramatically, or just drop them completely and introduce new (ranged) weapons that will fit the game better. We went for the latter option.

Sam:

Portarock:

You know that really is starting to sound ridiculous. Anytime the community reacts negatively to something Lionhead's reply is "well we could have taken the easy route and just made everything bigger and better but we aren't". What is the point of trying to be so so "innovative" if it is at the cost of everything else. We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, we get one button combat at the cost of control, we get a dog at the cost of being able to easily navigate without it, and now we get guns at the bows.

How can you say that our innovation is at the cost of everything else Portarock, I mean that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. You get the "no game over screen" because it's not fun. Or as Dene Carter put it in the interview with Loinhead: "What we normally like to do is end up with a relatively kind of chaotic system, so lots of variables to play with, lots and lots of detail, but not so complex that if you pull this thing here it burgh and explodes and ruins the game completely, “there’s no food anywhere you’re just going to starve” because that’s no fun for anybody really. It’s much like the “the-entire-world-is-overrun-by-monsters-that’s-it-you’re-dead.” Game over. It’s possibly the most - the least compelling game over I’ve ever seen, well, I can’t be bothered doing that again then. So we’ll always try to make sure that everything moves back to an equilibrium if possible, where the game is still fun to play but we never try to go as far outside the bounds as we possibly can."

fablier:

A  follow up question to that might be 'why can't bows fit into the game'?  As one of the main 3 types of combat in Fable (crossbows not included in ranged because they were useless imo) you would think that there would be a way to make them useful in some way.  So if bows can't compete with guns in normal open combat then make bows useful for assassins, guns are loud but bows are silent so they work perfectly in that situation.  It doesn't bother me that bows got cut, what doesn't make sense is why they couldn't have been expanded upon so they would still be useful. 

Ok these bows are obviously a sensitive issue, and we haven't even released the game yet! Crossbows are also silent (or at least compared to a gun), you can do much cooler things with it (I mean, look at this type of crossbow to give but one example). We have two options here, either we make the bows fit the game and change them dramatically, or just drop them completely and introduce new (ranged) weapons that will fit the game better. We went for the latter option.

Ranged weaponry is for losers anyway! Cloak and dagger ftw!!!!!1

In fact, Sam you better have put in my cloak this time, or I will attack lionhead with my rolling pin by myself!

Sam:

Portarock:

You know that really is starting to sound ridiculous. Anytime the community reacts negatively to something Lionhead's reply is "well we could have taken the easy route and just made everything bigger and better but we aren't". What is the point of trying to be so so "innovative" if it is at the cost of everything else. We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, we get one button combat at the cost of control, we get a dog at the cost of being able to easily navigate without it, and now we get guns at the bows.

How can you say that our innovation is at the cost of everything else Portarock, I mean that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. You get the "no game over screen" because it's not fun. Or as Dene Carter put it in the interview with Loinhead: "What we normally like to do is end up with a relatively kind of chaotic system, so lots of variables to play with, lots and lots of detail, but not so complex that if you pull this thing here it burgh and explodes and ruins the game completely, “there’s no food anywhere you’re just going to starve” because that’s no fun for anybody really. It’s much like the “the-entire-world-is-overrun-by-monsters-that’s-it-you’re-dead.” Game over. It’s possibly the most - the least compelling game over I’ve ever seen, well, I can’t be bothered doing that again then. So we’ll always try to make sure that everything moves back to an equilibrium if possible, where the game is still fun to play but we never try to go as far outside the bounds as we possibly can."

fablier:

A  follow up question to that might be 'why can't bows fit into the game'?  As one of the main 3 types of combat in Fable (crossbows not included in ranged because they were useless imo) you would think that there would be a way to make them useful in some way.  So if bows can't compete with guns in normal open combat then make bows useful for assassins, guns are loud but bows are silent so they work perfectly in that situation.  It doesn't bother me that bows got cut, what doesn't make sense is why they couldn't have been expanded upon so they would still be useful. 

Ok these bows are obviously a sensitive issue, and we haven't even released the game yet! Crossbows are also silent (or at least compared to a gun), you can do much cooler things with it (I mean, look at this type of crossbow to give but one example). We have two options here, either we make the bows fit the game and change them dramatically, or just drop them completely and introduce new (ranged) weapons that will fit the game better. We went for the latter option.

So I guess you are saying we will have repeating crossbows then? Makes me curious to know what these "new" ranged weapons are.

---

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)

introduce new (ranged) weapons that will fit the game better. We went for the latter option.

 

new ranged weapons huh? sounds sweet, i'm also curious to figure out what these could be, other than throwing knifes or spears, i can think of no other ranged weapon..... hmmmm...

---

Sam:

How can you say that our innovation is at the cost of everything else Portarock, I mean that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. You get the "no game over screen" because it's not fun. Or as Dene Carter put it in the interview with Loinhead: "What we normally like to do is end up with a relatively kind of chaotic system, so lots of variables to play with, lots and lots of detail, but not so complex that if you pull this thing here it burgh and explodes and ruins the game completely, “there’s no food anywhere you’re just going to starve” because that’s no fun for anybody really. It’s much like the “the-entire-world-is-overrun-by-monsters-that’s-it-you’re-dead.” Game over. It’s possibly the most - the least compelling game over I’ve ever seen, well, I can’t be bothered doing that again then. So we’ll always try to make sure that everything moves back to an equilibrium if possible, where the game is still fun to play but we never try to go as far outside the bounds as we possibly can."

I don't think that really addresses the point of Portarock's post.  The traditional game over screen might be the least compelling game over ever but at least it is a game over, as far as we know Fable 2 doesn't have one.  Now thats all well and but it hasn't been replaced with anything, there is no way to lose to an enemy.  So as far as we know Portarock's statement, We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, is completely accurate.

One button combat could very likely take control away from the player.  If attacks happen based on the hero's location, without any activation by the player, then the player has lost control of combat.  It might look cool, but you could end up just pushing X to see a combat move that you have no control over.  It is possible that you would have to do things to make these actions happen but so far it sounds like it will just be pushing the X button.  If it is just push X and some random action happens then this statement is true, we get one button combat at the cost of control.

With the dog we lost the mini-map, which isn't that big of a deal except some people don't want to play with the dog.  The people who want to play without it will be at a disadvantage, they might miss content and key areas in the game but that is their choice.  The dog also could take combat out of the players hands if it isn't done right, if the dog is too involved in combat it will force players to play a certain way.

Now bows, I still don't see why they have to be changed dramatically.  Crossbows might be quiet but they are still mechanical versions of bows, which would make them louder than bows.  So if crossbows are adjusted so they alert enemies when fired, just like guns, then bows would become useful for stealth.  If they won't be included because they can't look cooler that probably isn't a big deal, bows look cool enough already.  But if you won't reconsider then there isn't much more to debate, but then this statement is true, and now we get guns at the (cost of) bows.

I asked most of these questions in the episode 4 blog but they probably won't get answered because they aren't world related.  Hopefully you guys have looked at some of these and have solutions to them, the new features are great but they always seem to have a price attached to them.  Maybe in time we will find out that features have been added or expanded upon and that assumption is incorrect, but as far as we know it is true now.

---

Are you an ODST (fanboy)?

@Sam

Sorry for making such a ruckus about the bows. I guess it's not all bad, just my imagination taking over. After sleeping on it, I'm pretty much over it. I hope you put in a pretty sleek and stealthy crossbow though. Then I'll forgive you.

By the way, point about "taking things out", as much as i hate to admit it.

fablier:

(...)

Right, I'll make a video diary about death and how all that works, as part of a future diary.

Combat is about the one button, where you are, the item you're using as a weapon - be it a weapon or a frying pan, the rythm of the audio, what's around you, what your opponent is doing and I think that's it. It works, and everyone who has played it confirms that, just read the coverage from IGN or Kotaku. Oh and the dog works as well!

As far as your questions in the comments go, episode 4 is about the world. But there are going to be more and you'll hear more about Fable 2, so if they're any they could be answered.

Sam:

We have two options here, either we make the bows fit the game and change them dramatically, or just drop them completely and introduce new (ranged) weapons that will fit the game better. We went for the latter option.

At first I kinda skipped over this thing completely for some reason, but now I'm starting to think  that the exclusion of bows might be a thing actually... in some ways... I've seen enough of them. Maybe it is time to try something a bit different?

---

Sam:

We have two options here, either we make the bows fit the game and change them dramatically, or just drop them completely and introduce new (ranged) weapons that will fit the game better. We went for the latter option.

Not to nitpick the post, but you said they weren't dropped indefinitely, this kind of make it seems like they are forever gone...

Either way, you stated exactly what I've been saying this whole time...Guns are so overpowering that you need to reconfigure other weapons just to balance them out...But for some reason, reconfiguring all these other weapons are fine, but reconfiguring Bows to make them work is that much of a hassle??

And I don't see how they need to be changed dramatically...The loading animation needs to be faster so you aren't getting shot by a gun 3 times before your arrow is discharged...I mean, I really do not see why this is such a huge dilemma to keep them in the game...

You can manipulate anything you choose to in the game, but somehow, speeding up the keyframes is too tricky for some of the most talented animators in the world??

And I've said this a million times, you make it seem like casual gamers (YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC) are going to torch Lionhead Studios for not realistically making Bows inferior to other ranged weapons...You guys aren't shooting for realism, yet in a fantasy world, Bows cannot be changed to contend with THE OTHER WEAPONS YOU ARE CHANGING!!

I mean, none of the weapons you're putting in the game are directly taken from that time period...So why in the world are weapons being taken out when everything in the game isn't represented 100% accurately??  I just don't get it...

fablier:

Sam:

How can you say that our innovation is at the cost of everything else Portarock, I mean that's exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to make. You get the "no game over screen" because it's not fun. Or as Dene Carter put it in the interview with Loinhead: "What we normally like to do is end up with a relatively kind of chaotic system, so lots of variables to play with, lots and lots of detail, but not so complex that if you pull this thing here it burgh and explodes and ruins the game completely, “there’s no food anywhere you’re just going to starve” because that’s no fun for anybody really. It’s much like the “the-entire-world-is-overrun-by-monsters-that’s-it-you’re-dead.” Game over. It’s possibly the most - the least compelling game over I’ve ever seen, well, I can’t be bothered doing that again then. So we’ll always try to make sure that everything moves back to an equilibrium if possible, where the game is still fun to play but we never try to go as far outside the bounds as we possibly can."

I don't think that really addresses the point of Portarock's post.  The traditional game over screen might be the least compelling game over ever but at least it is a game over, as far as we know Fable 2 doesn't have one.  Now thats all well and but it hasn't been replaced with anything, there is no way to lose to an enemy.  So as far as we know Portarock's statement, We have no game over screens at the cost of not been able to lose, is completely accurate.

One button combat could very likely take control away from the player.  If attacks happen based on the hero's location, without any activation by the player, then the player has lost control of combat.  It might look cool, but you could end up just pushing X to see a combat move that you have no control over.  It is possible that you would have to do things to make these actions happen but so far it sounds like it will just be pushing the X button.  If it is just push X and some random action happens then this statement is true, we get one button combat at the cost of control.

With the dog we lost the mini-map, which isn't that big of a deal except some people don't want to play with the dog.  The people who want to play without it will be at a disadvantage, they might miss content and key areas in the game but that is their choice.  The dog also could take combat out of the players hands if it isn't done right, if the dog is too involved in combat it will force players to play a certain way.

Now bows, I still don't see why they have to be changed dramatically.  Crossbows might be quiet but they are still mechanical versions of bows, which would make them louder than bows.  So if crossbows are adjusted so they alert enemies when fired, just like guns, then bows would become useful for stealth.  If they won't be included because they can't look cooler that probably isn't a big deal, bows look cool enough already.  But if you won't reconsider then there isn't much more to debate, but then this statement is true, and now we get guns at the (cost of) bows.

I asked most of these questions in the episode 4 blog but they probably won't get answered because they aren't world related.  Hopefully you guys have looked at some of these and have solutions to them, the new features are great but they always seem to have a price attached to them.  Maybe in time we will find out that features have been added or expanded upon and that assumption is incorrect, but as far as we know it is true now.

I would like to say, that though we may not be able to lose in the traditional sense of gaming, we still can lose plenty, and yes we can lose to an enemy just because there is no game over screen doesn't mean you didn't lose. If you get into a fight with someone and they kick your a$$, do you get this big game over screen? No, you don't. You just get a blodied nose and a black eye or something like that. I personally like this system, because to me there is so much more at stake, than just a screen that says game over!!

One button combat, could in fact, take control away from the player, but that's the risks you take when you are innovating. The player has to press the button before he does anything. Let me ask you this, how much control did you have over combat in Fable, or even oblivion? You had a limited amount of control with those games (I'm only speaking of melee combat) Fable 2 control, if you ask me will be about the same really, only there will be more options, if you will, of going about it.


I don't think the dog will become too involved in combat, to the point of where you have to sit it out, or you have to try to race him there so you can kill something. And can't you get around just fine without the dog? I mean can't you find your way through all of Albion, without the dog?


I don't see why bows would have to be changed dramatically either.

If we are going to have repeating crossbows, hopefully some of you real big bow fans will like them alot.

---

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)