Fable 2 main quest will be around 12 hours long

by Justin McElroy { Jul 16th 2008 at 1:45PM }

We had a lot of fun playing Fable 2 last night (more on that in a bit), so we were disappointed when we heard from several Lionhead staffers that the game's main story would take most around 12 hours to complete. It's not that we thought we were getting ripped off, after last night we just hoping the answer would be a little closer to a hojillion.

Also, keep in mind: That's just for the main story. That's not figuring in the time you'll spend gambling, romancing, trying to get fat and all the other side quests that make Fable so Fabley.

Tags: e3-2008, fable-2, lionhead, microsoft

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Duke @ Jul 16th 2008 1:52PM

Lets hope the side quests add some time and added entertainment!

waynski1457 @ Jul 16th 2008 1:53PM

Well in the first one if you buckled down and only did story quests, didn't it only take 10-15 hrs?

It is still pretty short though...

NaeemTHM @ Jul 16th 2008 2:47PM

Yes exactly. Heck the main quest in Oblivion is half this time. It's the side quest that keeps us hooked!

Rob Accomando @ Jul 16th 2008 5:00PM

The main quest in Fable was 7-8 hours.

Eggy @ Jul 20th 2008 10:27AM

Are you serious? The main quest in oblivion is at least double this time?

Nick the Hero of Canton @ Jul 16th 2008 1:53PM

Again, didn't they say this a long while ago? I'm not trying to pick things apart but I'm pretty sure they did

Snowblind @ Jul 16th 2008 1:55PM

At least their being honest. I remember with the original game, we were promised a game that was over 100 hours long, and that was IF you were ignoring all the side quests! And of course, I think I managed to fully complete the game, my first time through in around 16 hours.

But with Fable 2, we have a better idea of what to expect, and it isn't being hyped as the second coming of christ. Instead, we know exactly what it will be, a fairly enjoyable adventure game. And frankly, if they can deliver something just like the first game, but bigger, more content and more freedom, then I'm definitely excited.

This is one of the better looking games coming this year.

Red Leader @ Jul 16th 2008 2:00PM

Couldn't agree more. As long as this one is an improvement on the last, I'll be satisfied.

T @ Jul 16th 2008 1:56PM

Wow...that's epic?

But I bet if you fully utilize the Dog (TM) you can get another 40 hours out of the game.

Snowblind @ Jul 16th 2008 2:00PM

Then look at it this way. How long did it take you to complete something like MGS4? ..And then how long would it have taken if you skipped all the cut-scenes?

Remember, there are no cut-scenes here, everything is done in game. And of course, there's a large focus on side quests, like simply living at home, having a job and raising a family.

Duke @ Jul 16th 2008 2:16PM

Snowblind, I often agree with you, but MGS isnt the proper benchmark. How many hours did Oblivion take? That was an open world rpg and it was long as could be. Though I am really excited for this game, the playtime is a disappointment.

Markusdragon @ Jul 16th 2008 2:50PM

Oblivion was artifically extended by the hugely repetitive and extremely boring oblivion gate missions, though.

T @ Jul 16th 2008 2:51PM

I don't have a PS3. Didn't play MGS4. (Didn't WANT to play MGS4)

I'll pause for shock value.

That said, this is an action/adventure style game. If it's styled to be more like Zelda maybe it's easier to stomach such a short main game...

Duke @ Jul 16th 2008 5:41PM

Markusdragon, yes maybe, but those missions sure were not 80 hours long or whatever.

ThePerfectCompanion @ Jul 16th 2008 1:57PM

Dissapointing to be honest...

Plus I want some damn cutscenes please.

Although like others have said hopefully all this PR bullshit they keep spouting about "uniqueness" and "choose your own path" adds lots of hours of fun to the game.

The demo vids on IGN are interesting though. I have hopes for the game but I don't want to get too invested in it.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Jul 16th 2008 2:23PM

Why? Fuck cutscenes. It's why I can't stand JRPGS. It's walk around for 10 minutes, then you get to watch 10 minutes of cutscenes. It isn't fun. You don't need cutscenes to tell a good story.

Guy Number One @ Jul 16th 2008 2:33PM

"You don't need cutscenes to tell a good story. "

Actually, you do. As any game that's tried otherwise just falls flat. Look at BioShock. Look at Half-Life. Look at Half-Life 2. Shallow stories, with good environments, and a fair bit immersion, and people mistake that for a good story, a good story that just flat out isn't present in the game.

nmezib @ Jul 16th 2008 3:07PM

@ Guy Number One: I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Bioshock had one of the most immersive and emotionally investing storylines I have played to date. Half-Life 2 had a helluva story, and that's why I'm still salivating at playing Episode three, just to see how everything fit together. same with Portal (though it's in the Half-Life universe), and that game was only two hours long, no cutscenes. Oblivion hardly had any cutscenes, only in the very beginning of the game and at the very end of the main mission. still one of the best stories and most immersive games around. And I spent more than 200 hours playing it. (hey, i graduated from college and didnt yet have a job)

Granted, there are great stories to be told in games with cutscenes, just look at MGS4 and GTAIV, but many of the scenes in games that I have played recently could definitely do without. Devil May Cry 4? Halo 3? Gears of War? Yeah, they have a story, they have a pretty... shallow story, and it's told mostly through cutscenes. You want to talk about storytelling falling flat, look at those three popular games, among other less popular ones! Don't tell me you think Halo 3's story is better than Half-Life 2's just because the former has cutscenes while the latter doesn't. That's rubbish and you know it.

The point is, if there is a good enough story, it will hopefully shine through no matter what the gameplay consists of, cutscene or not. But if there is a shitty, shallow, clichéd story, it doesn't matter how many cutscenes you throw in there to make a point, the story is going to be the same. Cutscenes don't make a story, it's just one way of telling it.

samfish @ Jul 16th 2008 2:00PM

That means that you'll actually be able to get through it in about 6-8 hours, since they usually double the amount of time a game will take to beat.

Did anyone really spend 100 hours on GTA4 or 80 hours on Twilight Princess, for example?

hydralisk456 @ Jul 16th 2008 2:09PM

I had a hard time putting 5 hours into GTA4.

arrrgh @ Jul 16th 2008 2:17PM

I'm on 45 hours in GTA4 and only like 48% complete

that guy @ Jul 16th 2008 2:36PM

It took me just over 60 hours to finish Twilight Princess, and there was PLENTY of stuff I could have still done. And if 60 hours in a game doesn't make it worth the money, then I don't know what does.

baby sea tuna @ Jul 16th 2008 4:08PM

I spent 60+ in GTAIV and still haven't gotten most of the side-job achievements.

BigD145 @ Jul 16th 2008 4:58PM

A good 60 in GTA4 and 40-50 in Twilight.

McWeen @ Jul 16th 2008 2:01PM

I don't see why people worry about game length in some titles but not others. Portal was about 3 hours and people were fine with that. Metal Gear Solid takes about 3 and a half if you skip the cutscenes and people basically masturbated to that games greatness.

Heh @ Jul 16th 2008 2:05PM

I was pissed that Portal was short. Took me about 2 hours to beat the game. :|

arrrgh @ Jul 16th 2008 2:18PM

there will always be people who masturbate to metal gear. it's a sick world

gameplayFanBoy @ Jul 16th 2008 2:23PM

Because generally in an Adventure/RPG people have higher expectations about the amount of depth the game has say compared to an FPS which is assumed to be more action focused and thus shorter in length. Just my 2c.

SPOOOOCK! @ Jul 16th 2008 2:38PM

Because Portal was only 1/5 of the total Orange Box AND because Fable 2 is an RPG. Fable 1 took me 9 hours to beat INCLUDING sidequests.

I think that the shortest good RPG i've ever played was Mass Effect(about 15-20 hours). But I did play it through 3 times so the length is actually closer to 40-50 hours.

With any luck fable 2 will have a more Bioware system of good/bad choices to make it more engaging than fable 1's choices(Do you kill your sister and take the sword or do you chuck the sword, THAT'S IT!?!?)

Lekko @ Jul 16th 2008 3:16PM

You beat MGS4 in three and a half hours?

What difficulty? I'm having trouble doing it under 6 on the harder ones.

McWeen @ Jul 16th 2008 3:24PM

I believe I think it was on medium when I beat it in 3 and a half hours.

Rob Accomando @ Jul 16th 2008 5:03PM

yeah, RPGs are expected to be a little longer. Anything under 15 hours is a waste of money, imo. I was pissed when it took me 8 hours to complete Fable.

ElNeebre @ Jul 20th 2008 11:16AM

@Heh
It was good that Portal wasn't over 2 hours long, as Yahtzee rightfully said, it didn't overstay it's welcome.

Heh @ Jul 16th 2008 2:04PM

When this game releases, I will make it my sole priority to steal each and every one of my friends' wives.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Jul 16th 2008 2:24PM

And I'll make it my sole purpose to slaughter all of my friend's families. CAUSE I'M THE PRINCE OF ALL SAIYANS!!!

BWAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

rv @ Jul 16th 2008 2:05PM

WTF? That is inexcusably short. There are fps's that are longer than that... 12 hours for a RPG? Are you serious???

Snowblind @ Jul 16th 2008 2:12PM

Are you counting JRPG's, that are mainly that length due to dialogue? Look at something like Neverwinter Nights or Morrowind/Oblivion as a better guage.

They're about the same length, I see no reason to be complaining here, especially when there's so much focus on the side quests and other activities.

Mike M. @ Jul 16th 2008 2:20PM

Yeah, I spent hardly any time on the story quests in Oblivion. Side questing is really what a lot of RPGs are all about in my opinion.

rv @ Jul 16th 2008 2:21PM

Mass effect was double that time in only main quest...

Mike M. @ Jul 16th 2008 5:04PM

I spent 60 hours without doing much side stuff in Tales of Symphonia. Some games are focused more on story line than others. Story focused games often have the better story, but side quest focused games usually have a world that seems more alive.

Dirty @ Jul 16th 2008 2:15PM

At least he is under promising for once. Always better to under promise and over deliver in my book.

JerJer @ Jul 16th 2008 2:25PM

hopefully it actually is an under promise...given his track record this might even qualify as "hype"

mirage @ Jul 16th 2008 2:26PM

This just made my decision between Fable 2 and Fallout 3 very easy for me.

Jakka @ Jul 16th 2008 3:57PM

Or you could buy both?And don't base your opinion on that because side-quests aside, I think that Oblivion Main-Quest was even shorter.

mirage @ Jul 16th 2008 4:14PM

If I win the lottery between now and October, I will certainly buy both. Unfortunately that is unlikely and I don't have that kind of cash to throw around. I did beat Oblivion but did lots of sidequests along the way and got all of the initial 1000 achiuevement points. It took me about 80 hours to do so.

This sounds more like Mass Effect which took me 19 hours to beat while trying to do the side quests. Hopefully the side quests in Fable won't be as black and white as they were in Mass Effect.

I KNOW that I will get my money's worth with Fallout 3 because I did with Oblivion and the post-apocalyptic theme is much more enticing to me than the fantasy theme in general.

arrrgh @ Jul 16th 2008 4:24PM

$60 is "that kind of cash" nowadays?

dang yo

mirage @ Jul 16th 2008 7:35PM

In case you haven't looked up from your monitor lately, we are kind of in a recession. I am also kind of trying to take care of a family while somehow maintaining a very spendy gaming habit. When you live paycheck to paycheck, $60 is "that kind of cash". I know most people on this site are teenagers or younger but you can't be that naive.

I don't mean to get all riled up, but $60 is a lot of money when you are having trouble putting food on the table. Games are definitely a luxury that I have to save up for in order to be able to buy them when they come out. I also look to get the most for my money. So when I hear that the main campaign of Fable 2 is only 12 hours and Fallout is touting a 100 hour game (including all content of course) the decision becomes fairly easy for me. I was definitely leaning towards Fallout 3 to begin with though since RPGs in fantasy settings are a dime a dozen (just like WW2 shooters). This info just put it over the edge.

Besides, with Fable 1 Molyneux touted all of the amazing aspects of Fable but actually turned in a slightly above average Action/RPG. I will just have to wait until I can rent this one to make an educated decision on it.

/End rant

theturtle363 @ Jul 16th 2008 2:32PM

Well at least the sidequests will be unique and interesting, not just different colored planets like Mass Effect

SPOOOOCK! @ Jul 16th 2008 2:45PM

What are basing that on, Fable 1? That games had ONE decent sidequest(Lady Gray) everything else was "go find three blue mushrooms to save my son" or "go kill a bunch of bandits/villagers."

Mass Effect let you talk your way through some sidequests, what will Fable 2 let you do, burp at people? :]

Rico @ Jul 16th 2008 4:02PM

Exactly. Fable had very few enjoyable sidequests. People are comparing this is Oblivion's main quest, which is about 7 hours long. But Oblivion's main quest is about 10% of the game!

The game may end up being 20 hours long which is neat and all, but compared to other recent RPGs -- The Witcher, Mass Effect, NWN2 (and its expansion) -- it falls short.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments