Fable 3 vs Fable 2 Graphics Comparison: Then and Now

A two-year gap separates Fable II from Fable III. In that time, Lionhead Studios put in a good bit of work to make the sequel look substantially better. The game still takes place in the land of Albion. And while the setting remains the same, the looks have definitely changed. On an artistic level, the world evolved, cities grew bleaker, and the inhabitants look quite a bit more downtrodden. From a technical standpoint, Lionhead Studios updated the game with higher resolution textures, better water reflections, normal mapping, and considerably more.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
HolyOrangeCows3267d ago

Acorns look much better in Fable 3.

DelbertGrady3267d ago (Edited 3267d ago )

Fable 3 could have looked much better though. I like the game but the graphics look really dated. I wouldn't mind Lionhead using UE3. They could probably get advice from Epic as well seeing as both work so close with MS.

Or why not make it cell shaded?

ProjectVulcan3266d ago

The fuzzy blur filter in 2 hid the jaggies a lot more prominent now in 3. I didnt like the blur filter at all but at least it did hide the lack of filtering reasonably well. Also the game still suffers with a lack of anisotropic filtering like 2 did. Its not the greatest engine ever, functional i would say.

Waiting for the PC version here, should clear up all those rough edges, maybe some gameplay tweaks too please.....

gcolley3267d ago

shame about the actual game. i am wondering if i should even bother finishing it. just lame. can't describe it any better than that. forget about the graphics, this game has other problems. i have never played such a dumbass game where it is normal to dance and play pat-a-cake with straight guys on the street in order to interact with them. what were they thinking, honestly beyond belief

kaveti66163267d ago

fable has always had that kind of mechanic. my friend loves it. i don't get it, either.

GTmonster3267d ago

what can they do in 6gb in every game?

NnT32913267d ago (Edited 3267d ago )

Well, you can have longer games with bigger discs. It's the Gpu that handles the graphics.

kaveti66163267d ago

There's that myth that disc capacity has a direct correlation on graphics. I don't know who first thought it up, but it's here to stay.

imvix3267d ago

Sony with their marketing lol. Bluray gives you good graphics lol.

GTmonster3267d ago (Edited 3267d ago )

but lets get real, to make an improvement they need better texture for that disc space.

kaveti66163267d ago

No, that's not how it works.

Zeevious3267d ago (Edited 3267d ago )

A low resolution 128x128 texture takes up about 1/4 of the space as a 256x256 texture (varying based on compression)

Now use a 'high resolution' 1024x1024 or higher and that's 8 times the space required or more.
It is a simple equation...if you have more space, you can store more and larger textures.

No, the storage space itself does not product better textures, but storage space size restricts the total amount of textures you can store. The higher the texture resolution, the more space needed.

The rest of the debates about compression and other details are just that...irrelevant details.

You can only compress so much without ending up with a blocky mess...and you are still compressing much more data, needing much more space compressed or not.

With anything CGI more space is ALWAYS better!
More Ram. More Raw processing power. More disc or HD space to store better textures and models!

In this case, less is not more. More is More!

imvix3267d ago (Edited 3267d ago )


Except you need the GPU muscle to generate better looking graphics. Sadly both the Consoles are equipped with 5year old hardware now. All the Space in the world will not help overcome that.

Zeevious3267d ago (Edited 3267d ago )

Where was I or anyone even discussing the GPU or the age of the current console models? I'm talking about storage and it's effect on storing textures based on resolution. from low resolution PS1 textures to todays games with individual maps 8 times larger or more.

There's a reason games are on DVD and up, and not on CD's...Space.

Same reason even a 1 gigabyte flash drive is now a giveaway item.
MORE IS MORE...More high-resolution textures -- More audio -- More room for everything...etc etc etc.

It takes more space to store a high resolution texture than a low one. With more space, you can store more high resolution textures. It's that simple.

How can claiming anything else be anything but delusional?

edhe3267d ago

You don't need larger textures to have more detail: normal mapping.

Zeevious3266d ago

A normal, bump, or any other map is...ANOTHER MAPPED TEXTURE that requires more storage space!

Everything requires more space the larger and higher resolution it is...and takes up more space than something at a lower, low-resolution.

Why is this even a debate? It's a fundamental law of storage. The more you have the more you can store.

Do people actually dispute that a HIGHER RESOLUTION TEXTURE takes up more space than a lower resolution one? Really?

Take 100 pictures with a 12 Megapixel camera and take the same pictures with this Polaroid PDC-700 at .8 Megapixels.

Gee...which one needs more space?


+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3266d ago
PS360PCROCKS3267d ago

Much better! I don't care what anybody says or how many disagrees I get Fable II looked like total ass and was a total bore fest and a chore to play. I played it 15+ hours and was so bored by "go here, kill this guy" or all the dumb mini games, most repetitive game I've ever seen.

Xi3267d ago

I'd love to see someone utilize the engine for a good MMO.

Show all comments (28)
The story is too old to be commented.