I liked what I saw but I still need to see more of the game.

From an objective point of view : Fable 1 > Fable 2 > Fable 3 ( this one is really lacking of something that makes Fable games what they are + all the technical issues making it awful to play)

You mean, from a subjective point of view, right?

You doubt of my objectivity ?!

Seriously, dont know how a Fable fan can say otherwise, the 3 was totally lacking of what makes a Fable what it is.

The 2 was good but the beginning of the fall ( too much easy because impossible to die )

The 1 , everyone will agree, it is just a cult game that inspired a lot of RPG

Fable 2 > Fable 1

Calling a game with a 89 meta mediocre......guess all PS exclusives with a 89 or under are as well. -_-

It was a great game. If it isn't your taste, then that's fair enough.

I'd need some serious arguments about that.

It's like if you were saying " Halo 4 > Halo 1 " ( and no i'm not the kind to think " it was better before " )

That depends on what you consider serious, because I'm using my own criteria and obviously it is subjective. There's people who say Fable 1 is the best. There's people who say Fable 2 is the best. Heck, there's even people who say Fable 3 is the best.

I'm not going to use metacritic either, because a) I never use it when arguing (a waste of time, IMO) , and b) scores there don't necessarily reflect what people truly think about the game. That being said, it is worth noting that Fable 2 scored better than Fable 1. (But I say that as a curiosity, not because it's proof or anything).

The problem with Fable 2 is that it is victim of its own hype, thanks to Peter Molyneux; so that's why people only focus on the negative side of the game rather than highlighting its strenghts.

Often people say Fable 1 is the best one, and I'm pretty sure they have they reasons. Well, I value Fable 1 above Fable 3, and I'll be lying if I said it is a mediocre game. Hell no, Fable 1 is amazingly great. But it suffers from a big problem: it is outdated. I noticed this while replaying it on Fable: Anniversary. Nice coat of paint, and I surely had a blast playing through it again, but it showed it age and its problems.

People tend to say that Fable 2 isn't better because it is easier. Far from truth. Fable 1 is as easy, if not easier, than Fable 2. Problem lies in that Fable 1 punishment for failure was different than in Fable 2. On the first game, you had to replay whatever section you were playing; on the second one, you loose an amount of experience and you're also granted with an eternal scar, but you keep playing where you're standing on. That sounds as if Fable 2 was easier...

...but that takes me to another problem. Gameplay. Fable 2 is smooth, precise (except when the Hero swings the sword randomly) and has finesse to it; Fable 1 is more often than not aggravating, especially swordplay. Difficulty on Fable 1 comes with the problem of the outdated gameplay; there's zero need of using the sword, since enemies can't be hit when they're on the ground, waking up, and more often than not they block your attacks. This sounds okay, but it is very annoying in paper, especially when you're surrounded. So, why using the sword? Why not magic, which is OP, or bows, which are completely broken? Trust me, playing as an archer or as a mage, the game becomes easier than Fable 2. "Play as a swordman, then!" Why? It is frustrating doing so. The system is outdated, and there's no shame admitting it. Why using counterattack to break a defense, on which you have to wait until the dude stands on his feet again to hit him again, when you can cast spells on everyone, or throw arrows? (And don't get me started on the Archery + Stop Time combo). Combat in Fable 2 in never annoying nor aggravating. If an enemy doesn't wake up too quick, you can execute him, and the flow of the combat keep going on (you could only execute people in Fable 1 if they were dazed). Magic certainly is a step down compared to Fable 1, but the game finds balance with it. You're certainly not punished as bad as in Fable 1 for dying, but I'm pretty sure you'll die from time to time in Fable 2, which then forces you to grind around a bit before going on, unless you want to keep dying.

Difficulty aside, Albion is far more charming in Fable 2 than in Fable 1. That's my opinion, anyway, but the setting is truly unique in Fable 2. Self-references, parodies, easter eggs from Fable 1, comments from people and even more are much, much better in Fable 2.

And I hope you agree with me that the expression wheel on Fable 2 is the best one of the saga.

Traversing through Albion is much better in the second game. Interacting with people is much better in the second game. The combat system is better on the second game, or at least, less broken and exploitable, which pretty much ruined whatever challenge Fable 1 could pose. Everything except the story, which admittely, is prety bad on the second game (I could tell it using only two lines), and the final boss, which was a cruel joke, is better on Fable 2.

One could complain that Fable 2 was less RPGish than Fable 1, which I agree, but that change was for the better. Armors in Fable 1, except at the start, had close to none impact on your character, minus the aesthetics and the Karma change that some clothes provided. They understood this, hence why Fable 2 has clothing to customize, not to defend yourself. Oh! Talking about that; customization is far, far better on Fable 2 too.

Not under the radar for me but a very very very watered down The Last Story to me so think I will pass

Well as an Sony Pony now I must say I liked the 2 first Fable on Xbox.
When I buy xbox a good Fable is more interesting than Halo for me.