Fable 3 takes place in Albion. The player's character
(the Hero), a member of the royal family, is on a quest to overthrow his/her
brother, king Logan, who has become a tyrant. The first half of the game
centers around the Hero gaining allies across Albion who will aid in
overthrowing Logan. However, because the Hero will be the next one to rule,
they will ask you to promise them to help them when you are King/Queen. Then,
when you finally defeat Logan, you will become Albion's ruler and will be
required to make intentionally hard decisions to help rule the kingdom. This is
where, for me, things become a bit messy. Let me just say that if you’re
looking for a perfect illustration of why integrating linear plots and themes
into open game design is so difficult and problematic, then Fable 3 is your case study.
It is not a stretch to call the
Fable games 'open' games, i.e. they are games where the player is allowed a
great deal of freedom in deciding how to live life, what decisions to make, to
act morally or immoral, etc. Although all three games had main storylines, the
player could at almost any time deviate from the story path to do something
else entirely. Now, with the second half of Fable
3, I feel unhealthy tensions arise between this key aspect of the Fable series and the narrative themes
expressed here. In other words, it is the old-fashioned conflict between open
game design on the one hand and plot and theme on the other.
To be fair, I don't blame Creative
Director Peter Molyneux and Lionhead Studios for attempting to deal with the
theme of being a ruler. As Molyneux said, he didn't want Fable 3 to be the next in a long line of games that start you off
as weak and make you more powerful until you beat the Big Bad. It is usually at
that point, when you have become king, that these games stop which for Molyneux
is “the most exciting bit.” (Fable
3 wiki). The dramatic point of the third entry in the Fable franchise is
thus to put you in the role of a ruler and make you experience the dilemmas one
would encounter in such a position of power. As Molyneux puts it: “The
really strange thing about leadership is that there's a common thread that has
existed for centuries in all cultures. Whenever politicians, rebels or juntas
are climbing to power they make promises, and very often these promises are not
delivered on. We want to give a sense of that, so as you're building up your
forces, as you're being a rebel, you will find this opportunity to promise
things to get more power. Then after you've become leader, the opportunity to
live on those promises has real consequences.” (Fable 3 wiki) This is in itself an ambitious thing to explore in a
video game and the effort is admirable. However, in deciding to explore these
issues and integrate them into the game design they automatically destroyed
what was key about Fable, its open game design. Not only this, but, even more
damningly, it also causes irreparable damage in the everlasting tension between
open game design and the requirements of plot and narrative themes.
Let’s take a look at what sacrifices
in open game design have been made to effectively convey this theme of being a
ruler. As a ruler, you face a threat: the Darkness (talk about creativity...)
will arrive at Albion in a year and you have to gather 6,5 million gold to
counter the threat and ensure everyone's survival. However, what about all the
promises you made? This is where those come in. You’ll face many choices with
most of them being divided into two categories: the 'good' choice which will
deplete your treasury and the 'wrong' choice which will substantially increase
the amount of gold in your treasury. So this, in a nutshell, is the moral
component of kingly decisions. If you only did 'the right thing' all the time,
you would be in the red in no time. Do the 'wrong thing' all the time and the
people will despise you, but you will however be capable to combat the external
threat of the Darkness.
One of the structural failings has
to do with the integration of a deadline. Because you have to make decisions
and the time is running out after each set of decisions, eventually the game
will end and you will receive a good or bad ending, depending on the amount of
gold you possess. This deadline also, crucially, causes failings in terms of
game design. By enforcing the nature of the plot and theme with a deadline
(which makes sense in terms of plot), the game also restricts its sense of
openness. One isn't allowed to fully 'enjoy' being a ruler, because one is
constantly reminded of the deadline, added for dramatic weight. And having fun
being a ruler was one of the game's goals as seen in this quote by Molyneux: “What's
so interesting about that is you look at it and you realize that, "Gee,
these people who ruled our land up until very recently were actually very
creative with their power and abused it and use it in many evil ways."
Take Henry VIII, let's just go through some of the things this guy did. Rather
than say, "Hey, this marriage is not working out so well," he just
decided to completely kill off his wives. Not only did he do that, but to do
the deed he just got rid of religion and replaced it with a new one. He also
took five percent of the entire tax income – the equivalent of billions of
pounds in today's world – and spent on his personal wine cellar, while many
people within the country were suffering from starvation and plague. This guy
definitely wasn't that nice a guy, and if you write that down he sounds really
evil. Does history paint him as being really evil? Not really, it paints him as
being a bit of a jolly chap who was quite infatuated with six women. That's
fascinating inspiration and we really want to give you the power to be that
colourful when you're ruler.” (Fable
3 wiki) If the deadline wasn't there, then one could just do “colourful”
stuff and make money along the way until he had enough and decided it was time
to defeat the Darkness. Doing this however would decrease the narrative tension
and drive of the second act. By adding the deadline, it logically lends more
dramatic weight to your decisions, because it feels like Albion's future rides
on each and every one of them. Of course, the addition of the deadline also
means restricting what makes Fable 'Fable', its openness which now has to be
restricted in the name of plot.
Another structural failing lies in
the fact that even though it seems that you must either choose between option
1) being benevolent, but losing against the Darkness and option 2) being
tyrannical, but defeating the Darkness, there is a 'perfect' option. Even
though being a kind ruler will deplete your resources, the Hero has the option
of donating to the treasury using his own gold. This would mean doing jobs
scattered around the game world (being a blacksmith, playing the lute, etc.)
and buying and renting out property so you’re almost constantly making money...ad nauseam. This would be incredibly
tedious and – even though it grants you a perfect ending by being both
benevolent and being capable of defeating the forces of Darkness – runs
counter to the theme of the game which suggests it is only possible to beat the
Darkness if one makes sacrifices for the greater good: 'yes, it is regrettable
I have to reinstate child labor, but it is necessary and unavoidable if we are
to defeat the Darkness', etc. The game is interested in exploring – or rather
enforcing – these moral dilemmas. But by also granting you the option of a
perfect ending – perhaps precisely because it is a game and an optional perfect end is pretty much expected (or
mandatory) – it circumvents these moral dilemmas, thus undermining the entire point
of the game’s second act.
By adding the deadline in the name
of plot, the game loses its sense of openness, but by also giving you the
option of tediously 'grinding' for the perfect ending (in the name of open game
design), the game also fails in terms of plot and theme. It’s like a vicious
circle. Fable 3 wants to have both open
gameplay and an interesting narrative and as a result fails spectacularly at either.
No comments:
Post a Comment