FABLE III SPOILER ALERTS GALORE!!!!

 I found it rather ironic that during an interview Peter Molyneux talked about Fable III mirroring real life because the 'candidate' had to make 'hard political choices' since the way the game was designed they really aren't. Very similar in my mind how the U.S. politicians try to convince us we can have our cake and eat it too. Anyway, I made a list of ways Lionsgate could have made these decisions more meaningful. I apologize ahead of time for the *yawn* factor. It was something I had to do for my own satisfaction. 

1. First off player cannot even start their revolution till hey have at least enough gold to pay for you army, period (unless a secret deal is made with Reaver beforehand to let him have his mine where the lake was). If the player has more money it will keep the country from being as devastated after the 'armageddon' battle. Not enough money, Albion gets scarred, period.  To make a natural level cap, bar the king/queen from renting properties while he/she is monarch and proportion how much money made from their businesses vs. how many businesses they own (less free enterprise, less money is made). This needs to kick in after say the player owns more than half the available properties in a way that would discourage the player from making too much money for their following rulings to be meaningful. If the  MUST have enough money for everything let them at least have to experiencing sheer boredom from having to wait such a long time for their coffers to be full. Added benefit: It encourages more multiplayer. 

2.  Plater CANNOT go into the negative.  A player would be forced to put off a decision that would put them in the negative until they either get enough money from their personal stash or go on to another choice that would put more money in the coffers (ie taxes are raised or breaking their promise to the Dwellers by not giving them land and having their trees cut ).

3. Income from shops immediately goes down to almost nothing (a result of civil war) and the player must get it back up by making some choices that are negative with the people (ie tax increase or raising prices). This negativity needs to really be shown by people booing them or throwing rotten fruit or whatever. 

4. Make certain decisions either/or…for example, either continue with child labor or the ‘eco – warriors’ get forced to work and let their little town goes ‘back to nature’ or monarch is forced to make a ruling to drag enough people to the factory to work for (I can just see a scene of soldiers marching through out the land and pulling up every hapless begger off the street and throwing them in the factory). Since later the player gets option to build the town of driftwood it wouldn't be THAT bad of a consequence would it?

6. No drinking and rebuild the old quarter for no extra funds (increased productivity?) , drinking stays the same and player has to rebuild the old quarter with treasury funds or no drinking limit and hire extra guards to keep the peace.

7. Aurorians get their protection but have to ‘donate’ people to work in factories or mines. They have too many sales people in Auroria anyway. 

I have a feeling that probably originally they had a similar system but getting the mechanics of it to work programming wise was to difficult so it was scrapped.