I've noticed on this site (and perhaps everywhere else, but I don't bother with other gamesites too much) that whenever a blog is posted involving Peter Molyneux, lots of posters queue up to put the boot in. It doesn't matter what he's saying, he gets trashed, and I for one, want to know the real reasons. I know he's guilty of hyperbole, but he is one of gaming's visionaries, and as such it is vital that he continues to think outside of the box a little. I suspect that there are fanboy related reasons for a lot of the hate, and that's a real shame, but to be expected, sadly. As someone who has spent the majority of the last 20 years as a PC gamer, I find the vitriol aimed at Peter quite surprising. Bullfrog games rarely put a foot wrong over the course of their entire output, and I defy any serious PC gamer to pick out an absolute Turkey game from the Bullfrog stable. I also think that Lionhead studios have been pretty much great with their output, too. They are guilty of not living up to the lofty expectations that Peter is guilty of creating at times, but they're never guilty of being crap games. I find it depressing when I read shit like "Peter Molyneux = fail", and it makes me wonder, do you really think that, or are you pissed off with him because you're a PS3 fanboy, and Molyneux is in collusion with the devil? That is not a genuine reason to dislike him, more a tribal reaction, and while I can understand where it's coming from, I can have nothing but contempt for its motive. It's like whenever I see someone state that Fable 2 is crap, I'm just thinking 'whatever - PS3 owner by any chance?" But what I realise with that stance is that I'm being presumptious, and maybe there are genuine reasons for hating it. I personally think that Fable 2 is a great game, and is bursting at the seams with something that I've really begun to miss in video games this generation: British humour. Is it maybe that there are a lot of Americans that just don't get it? Is that why you think it's crap? Because for me, the only reason to hate on this game would be because you don't like action games, or RPG-lite games, or cartoony games. Why is the game crap? It clearly isn't, and I remain highly suspicious of the motives behind the hate. So again, I'm being presumptious.
So I write this blog so that anybody who can be arsed can reply with real, valid reasons, even if you're honest about your tribalism and just state, I hate Molyneux becuase he's at Microsoft - at least it is a reason, even if it is retarded. As a British man myself, I feel proud of Peter Molyneux - we need more like him, even his over-the-top ideas, so what if they usually watered down by realities/limitations/budgets, at least he tries to put his dreams into action, while we in the blogosphere, take a perverse pride in pissing on anything and everything. I feel the same sort of pointless vitriol is aimed at David Cage, too. Why though?
|
ChaosTeaCup's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
This is the Internet after all. Any little can set people ablaze. If you mention Molyneux to your buddies in real life they'll chuckle and everybody will say sonethin or other and it's done. It's not like Molyneux talking hurts anyone. Nobody is gonna hop on a soapbox and go "Fuck you Molyneux! You're a thorn in the industry! I will hint you down like the dog you are and gut you in order to hang you on my wall!" No not in real life. On the Internet however people can be a little meaner than they are in real life so that's where I think all the hate comes from. I've seen many people who talked shit about Molyneux meet him in person and have completely different opinions about him. People hate Molyneux the designer. I don't think anyone really hates Molyneux the person. He's ambitious and he gets excited but sometimes that just hurts him. It's not a crime, it's quite a good sign, but he talks too much for his own good.
I think the only people who genuinely hate Molyneux are fanboys. I still can't explain why but fanboys aren't creatures of logic so I think that kind of answers that question.
I'm a veteran Molyneux hater. When I was in middle school, information for "Project Ego" was released. It was supposed to be the greatest game ever created, and was so detailed, that you could slice a blade of grass, and it would have to grow back over many days, game time. The game was supposed to be completely free roaming, and have a character importer, where you could unleash your hero into your friend's world to compete.
That ended up being Fable. None of those features made it in, and it ended up being one of the most linear games of all time. He does that every game: just straight lies about things that never make it in, and never apologizes for it.
That's Molyneux.
I've got a lot of time for most of what you write, Magnalon, and I appreciate that you were frustrated by the lost promises that didn't make it into Fable, but I also think maybe you were a little naive to have expected - and I say expected because the reaction was to turn you into a 'veteran Molyneux hater' - all those things to come to fruition, especially given the hardware limitations at the time of Fable's release, let alone its production time. He was guilty of over-hyping it yes, but I still think in Fable we got a fresh new spin on the action adventure/rpg take. I don't know how you can say it was 'one of the most linear games of all time' - that's one hell of a lot of games, and pretty much an entire industry of linear games of the 80's and 90's, that you've put it atop. Like Peter has undoubtably done so, I think you're maybe guilty of overstating your point for maximum impact. I would also take issue of you're assertion that he tells straight up lies, whereby I think he's more guilty of simply getting carried away with himself. I'm sure his dev team think him to be an absolute nightmare to work for, but I would be fairly confident in supposing that they wouldn't want to work for anyone else for those same reasons.
Xzyliac - The internet is often a forum for anonymous controversial rhetoric. While I understand that as reality, I'm still slightly baffled as to why he gets so much hate outside of fanboy smack-talk.
If you believed any of that you deserve your disappointment.
Molyneux is not the only one who does that. TONS of people and devs do that and don't get nearly the hate Molyneux gets.
Molyneux has been doing it for years, though. He's the KING of it! There's a reason there's so much hate: PR is PR, but Molyneux is ridiculous. Notice how the Dante's Inferno ad campaign was strong, but they never fabricated what the game could be. They said from the beginning: this is an action game, and just hyped it's strengths. There's no problem with PR hyping a game: that's their job.
I see there's tons of Fable apologizing in here. I thought Fable was "ok at best", and really did nothing for the RPG formula at all. Morrowind came out years before it, and did much more for the industry in terms of RPGs. Devil May Cry did much more for the industry with an actual fresh take on the action adventure genre (it had leveling and skills, too).
Fable was a glorified Onimusha that had broken spells (slow time and multi-hit), but because it was Western (read: not Eastern), people loved it.
But you have twits like Molyneux or - just as bad - David Cage taking this really old concepts and trying to make them sound fresh and new. Its almost like the Obama administration - they think you're stupid and they think they're doing something fresh and new, but they're doing what Carter and Roosevelt did.
So when people like Molyneux develop a history, don't be surprised if people don't forget that history. He was doing this well before it there was a "Project Ego" and even before Black and White.
Watch it happen in the future with David Cage, the guy has no ability to be modest. He wants you to think Heavy Rain is something fresh and different, but we've seen these kinds of games before in Myst, Ace Attorney, Zork or Dragon's Lair.
That's it.
Tons of Eastern games, and PC games (as Silent mentioned) have been doing these concepts for ages. It's a shame the general public thinks anything Molyneux makes is "new", because these concepts have existed for many years.
Me, I missed the hype field for the first Fable. I didn't play it until about 6 months before Fable II came out. I actually *really* enjoyed it. From a progression standpoint, it most certainly was not intensely technical. In retrospect, a little ugly. In terms of gameplay bells and whistles, its fairly straightforward. In terms of really tangible player choice, in loadout or narrative, its really very thin. By the numbers,its about as bad as Magnalon describes.
But taken as a thing, I found it to be really special. The music was gorgeous and really set the tone. The humor and character of it was unique and persistent. The little hooks of it caught me, and got me to care about the world while I was in it. And (if you believe in games having messages) the theme of questioning what a hero looks like versus who a hero really stuck into me.
If you're considering Fable, as a series, as the fulfillment of your (or Molyneux's) intricate and wildest dreams of a world of techinal details and interactivity, it is, for sure, a failure. Taken as a unique play on ideas and themes, its really very successful.
Molyneux's definitely a dreamer and has this infectious enthusiasm for making games. What sucks is that, if you're ever going to release a game, you're going to have to cut back and retool your dream. With such a big difference between what he dreams and what a team can actually manage to produce, maybe he shouldn't talk as much. For me, though, I'm glad he's as excited and vocal as he is. Its rare that we get to see that in this industry. For as much as people call him out for lying, I feel like he's one of the most genuine guys in the business.
Did it not occur to you that people maybe loved it because it was a fun game?
I'm not apologizing for Fable - it has nothing to apologise for. Better than most games, but not as good as the best.
The game was charming and funny, and not in the slightest bit offensive, so to read you spit daggers at it is odd. But to then insinuate that some form of xenophobia is behind its popularity is just baffling from someone whose posts are quite spot on.
Hate does funny things to people.
Most of my respect for Molyneux is from the Bullfrog days. Populous pretty much invented a genre - a genre that will remain amongst my favourites of all genres, though one that is sadly under-appreciated these days. I'll never forget the first time I played Populous on my ST. It ranks as one of the most poignant moments in my 30 year history of gaming.
I mean, Mass Effect 2's squad based consequences are as old, at least, as the original X-Com, and technically MUCH more restrictive in regards to what it does with consequence for poor leadership decisions and your ability to prep your squad. The execution of it, though, works to the larger effect of the game.
Games don't have to be innovative to be good, right?
Word.
My favourite thing about playing Uncharted 2, was that it played the same as Gears of War, and I LOVE Gears. The presentation was top-notch, the characters likeable, and the slapstick was mostly well done, but above all, it had the exact same combat mechanics as one of my favourite games, and therefore was a joy to play as well as see. And Uncharted 2 was linear as hell; far more linear than Fable, but that doesn't stop it from being an amazing game, and an undoubted highpoint for the PS3, and this generation of gaming in general..
I just think good games have to be good to be good. Sounds dumb as hell, but in this strange age of internet discussion, sometimes we can't see the wood for trees, or nothing can be good or bad without being at the expense of, or compared to, something else that is good or bad..
I thought the "tone" of the game was good (I quite like British humor, "chicken chaser dialogue/script" but Americans seem to hate British humor on the whole for some reason), but the actual game itself was very bland, and broken.
Basically the point here is that Fable is extremely average at best. I don't even think it came up with any new ideas, nor I do think it executed them very well. What did Fable do, at all, that Ocarina of Time didn't do better?
Any action-adventure-RPG hybrid for that matter? Jack of Blades looked cool, but had no story whatsoever. Maze's story/motivation was poor. The Guildmaster was generic. The spells were broken (two really good ones, tons of useless ones). The morality system was excruciatingly black and white (pay money and pray at temple or sacrifice innocent people - really?). The relationship system was "spam tons of expensive jewelry to get wife". The only part of that game that truly stood out to me was the situation with Lady Grey: but even then it was just a 3D representation of what Baldur's Gate had done better years before.
Any hate I have for the game is because it's factually just not very good.
From the hip, giving reasons for the player to care about the world. I can go back to Kakariko village, but nothing about that place resonates as meaningful. Its incredibly functional, save for the tacitly tragic "dissonace" between Saria and Link.
Going back to Oakvale, after the progression from innocent gift quest, to the razing of the city, to the nonchalant return, and realzing in the fiction that the town was rebuilt as you "remember" it.-- that meant something beyond the raw function of it being another "go here" point.
I'll be thinking about that more though. I've honestly never thought to compare the two.
It was just one example, really.
I understand the "on it's own merits" argument, but there has to be a point where we can compare similar works. Take Dante's Inferno for instance - not everyone has $60 to drop on what might be a God of War clone that doesn't bring enough to the table in comparison. It would be nice to point out the merits of buying the God of War collection, brand new, for $30: half the price of Dante's Inferno, and includes two games that are both better in quality.
After you brought up that a game doesn't have to be original to be great: I immediately thought of Bioshock. System Shock 2 and various other FPS/Bethesda games have done what Bioshock did before it, but it was so well made that it felt fresh anyways. I feel like Fable didn't accomplish that.
Morrowind
Deus Ex Invisible War
Knights of the Old Republic.
All of them bore these elements, and and I could go further back from the last generation of games. Fable not only did nothing new, it didn't wear these elements that well.
And as unforgiving as people are toward DX:IW - like Morrowind, it had more than the Good/Evil dichotomy going for it. You could play both side against each other or remain neutral as well. Additionally, there wasn't just one way to solve a problem, but a couple more options.
Western game design does it. Even if I'm only evil in something like Grand Theft Auto, I'm often given a number of ways to complete a mission (unless its a chase or a bank robbery, anyway).
Its what's nice about western games, but I'm not going to pretend its new.
I wonder how much of a part Fable has to play in the falling of Peter Molyneux's stock as game designer in the eyes of the gamer. I put a lot of it down to console-centric ignorance of the PC platform's contribution to gaming, and a lot of it down to fanboy tribalism as I stated above. I wonder how much influence Fable has on this, too...?
I'm off now, but thanks for your input. And thanks for restoring my faith in the D-toid community, though to be fair, I'm familiar with all of you as contributors, and none of you are in the camp that grate my testicles...
I get that you don't like the game(s), I get that Molyneux' hype bothers you, but you still haven't justified why you hate Molyneux. Is it so tough to just not take what he says to heart? You call Molyneux a liar who never apologizes but I have a vague memory of Molyneux coming out and saying he got ahead of himself with Fable. And I was around for the Fable 2 hyping and it was not that bad AT ALL. It was nothing unlike what any major release with a popular designer backing it would be hyped like.
As far as the "Who did it first," stuff that's nerd bullshit that I won't delve into because it's irrelevant.
My take is that it's healthy to have criticism backed up by reason on occasion, so people don't just buy every game ever because everyone else thinks it's great, unknowingly walking into something that might be mediocre.
Everyone I know who is a bit jaded about Peter/Lionhead is so because of the above statement. Extremely high expectations straight from the mouth of Molyneux and games that didn't come close to realizing all those wonderful ideas.
Still, they're great games. Gamers just like to bitch.
Fable 2 quotes
"If you shake another character's hand with your muscular side, you can hurt them so much that they will harbor an unfavorable opinion of you. Shaking hands with the weak side of your body will make you seem foppish and weak."
"Players will be able to adjust the volume from 1 to 100 in increments of 1. You could play the game 100 times and have an entirely different experience."
"You can grab any NPC and take them on your quest, regardless of sex."
That's our Molyneux!
If you remember, the Coop was hyped to hell as the "be all end all of adventure coop", but was glitched at release, and was actually terrible/flat.
Molyneux should make feature films, or animated films: not games. There are plenty of lead devs that are proud of their work, but not overly cocky - take Tim Schafer for example. That's why I dislike Molyneux: because he has zero humility.
He has this annoying habit of exaggerating every single thing that comes out of his mouth. The biggest thing that got me was when he said that sci-fi writers had not even begun to dream about what Natal can do. IT'S A FUCKING CAMERA. It's been done quite a few times before.
The folks at Bioware or Atlus would tell you how influential a game like Dungeon Master was for them, in fact, you can see it the forthcoming SMT: Strange Journey or Dragon Age if you pay attention. They've gone on record to even say at point such a game was influential to their franchises and careers.
And when they talk, they talk about their game's strengths and tend not to blow them out of proportion.
They don't dance around at act like they've invented fire.
Being good as a game you can share with your daughter doesn't mean it's good on its own.
I wrote an entire c-blog devoted to how low the standards this game seems to have for itself, if you want to see why I have so little respect for Molyneux. He has the freedom and budget to create any kind of game he wants, so he goes and makes an emotive gesture simulation that doesn't even do a good job of being an emotive gesture simulator. He deserves the criticism.
Isn't it always that way, though? The truly annoying people from all the comments sections on the main page never come to these types of blogs to defend their insanity against a rational point-of-view.
I think that Molyneux simply shouldn't talk about features of a game before he's actually seen them successfully implemented. That said, I'm also not in the camp that hates him. I actually think he's a pretty likable guy...very ambitious and probably just wants to make the best games that he can. That doesn't defend Fable 2 or his other games that have fallen far short of expectations or even competitors released during the same time, though.
Like others, I thought Fable 2 was a fun, if flawed, experience. I was disappointed that the interactions with the world were distilled into "Sims" type interactions, though I had my expected fun with farting in crowds and doing lewd dances and such for awhile.
"If you shake another character's hand with your muscular side, you can hurt them so much that they will harbor an unfavorable opinion of you. Shaking hands with the weak side of your body will make you seem foppish and weak."
lol wut? Really? >_<
Well, fair enough: You can't take the guy's excited babble for gospel set in stone features.
Given that though, I still find his ranting intruiging as all get out. There was some talk of your child taking over if you died in Fable II, which was really exciting, but ultimately cut/all in his head/otherwise didn't actually happen. Dissappointing, but an exciting idea to put out there in a reasonably inherent conservative AAA landscape.
and after crafting "reasonably inherent conservative AAA landscape.", I need to go troll something on the frontpage. I don't have any business writing like that without wearing a scarf and beret...
If Coke came out and say We got a new product Coke X and it will take you to places a Cola has never taken you before. Guys will become Adonis and the ladies will have sexier figures if they drink it daily. It comes out and it is good, but not nearly that good, what will people say? What will people think of Coke then? The naturally will become more jaded.
I actually like the Fable games, and I really do not care what they added or did not add to the genre. But I basically ignore what the man has to say.\
Ah gamers. Like any devotee they love to complain. I swear fashion mavens bitch less and are less snide than gamers are. I include myself in this BTW.
But they are the number one demographic in the consumption of games. It is better to have a vocal community, even if that community is snarky, contradictory, and easily provoked, than have one that is says little and acts on silent preferences.
IMO it all boils down to the excessive hype over stuff that others have done before sometimes better, even more because he's been doing it for years unlike Cage (i'll grant that Cage could be the Molineaux of tomorrow if we are to take HR as an example).
P.S. i'm a Wii60 owner, so no, you can't use the PS3 fanboy excuse, but to be fair i haven't played Fable but i'm planning on getting Fable 2 soon mostly due to Zxyliac's praise, we'll see if we agree or as more often than not, we clash.
lol good note: I'm chilling with all three systems and I'm still satisfied with my Molyneux products so far. I guess even populous... it was pretty awesome for a month or two.
Still Fable 2 was good. Did it have a deep story? No. Did it revolutionize anything? No. Was it the prettiest, the biggest, the deepest, or the most challenging? No, no, no, and no.
Was it fun? For me yes. Definitely. In fact it was one of the few open world games that I played for at least week after beating the main story. Rarer still it was one of the few game I wanted to get 100%. And for that reason I think Molyneux is a success. Because he made a good game that people apparently like since they're buying it.
I'll admit to not having the strongest case here and being less informed than most people here but if the man makes good games that people like I don't see the problem. And I feel like, and this is just me here, that's what it takes to be a good designer. If I promise my game will make you want to kill yourself because you're not inside of it (a ridiculous claim that shouldn't be taken to heart in the first place) and it doesn't but it's still considered a great game by the majority of the community am I a bad designer because I failed to meet the benchmark I set for myself?
You guys call Molyneux liars. I think that's harsh. I think he's premature. He has a laundry list of stuff he wants to do, that his team sets out to do, and it doesn't always make the cut. It doesn't mean he's not trying. It just means, as I've said before, he talks too fucking much. That's it. It doesn't make him a bad designer. It means he needs to hold onto his dick a little longer before he orgasms.
I enjoyed what bullfrog put out, but I dont like Molyneux now.
I played through fable and it left me with the same feeling as black and white. While both these games were 'ok', I feel his insistance on totally overhyping every point of a game like it's going to be an absolute genre changer actually detracts from the overall game.
It's not that he doesnt meet the hype with only some of his statements, it seems every statement he makes hes aiming for the stars.
As a result, I don't listen to a word he says about his games. I wish they would get someone else as a front man and put a muzzle on Peter. Or atleast only talk about actually implemented features.
I would never preorder a Molyneux game, and only want to make a decision on buying one if a close friend recommends it.
I guess thats why I dislike him, he used to sit back and make good games, now he just talks out his ass.
I was DEFINITELY caught up in the "Project Ego" hype. The hype for that game was outrageous, moreso than any other game I've heard talk for. When it came out I was disappointed that it didn't reflect what Molyneux said. But, I still enjoyed it, and I learned from my mistake of taking what a dev says about a game without a grain of salt.
So I moved on, and was wary of what he said. However, I don't believe it can be denied that he has made some good games. So, as a designer, he is a good guy. As a PR person, not so much.
Because of his ridiculous claims in the past, I simply won't buy one of his games until heavily researching it first, so he just ended up hurting himself. But I love his ambition and his desire to create what seems impossible. Somebody needs to be aiming high, or else things will get really stagnant, really fast. He just needs to hype less.
@Magnalon: October 2004. Peter apologized http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3724674.stm
Then he started right back up with Fable 2 :D