ThunderPeel2001

Some free advice to Peter Molyneux...

Recommended Posts

How about instead of blaming Molyneux for your own dissapointments, we stop having extreme expecations to ANY game that gets release EVER, and just let the poor guy be passionate about his games.

Seriously, if you get disappointed, you set yourself up to it. Never in the entire history of videogaming has there been ONE game that suddenly moved gaming twenty years into the future - but some people still manage to expect this.

Oh, and I don't think he wants the player to care about the character, we always had that. I think he wants us to feel loved, to have the "relationship" go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if it's nothing more than a statemachine it mostlikely won't have any emotion. All paths are predetermained, so it's nothing more than the love/hate scale similar to, for example, the light/dark-side stuff in the starwars games. If you want the characters to develop emotional scars you'll have to do more than a statemachine. The dog looks more like a normal NPC (with very nice animations) that listens to simple commands.

But the bigger question would still be if it's wasted effort. It's all fun at stuff, but I rather have 3 NPC that combined have the same work effort than 1 NPC with this effort.

I think you've been taking what he says not only more literally than you should, but more literally than even Molyneux intends. He's not trying to make the dog or the game feel for you -- there's no force in the world that could do that. When he talks of the dog's unconditional love for the player (as if that could exist in anything actually living and feeling), he talks of a gameplay mechanic. The point is not to make the dog feel. The point is to make the dog seem as if he's feeling and by that make YOU, the player, feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four days ago, I wrote somewhere that I was growing tired of Molineux' and Spector's 10 years old speeches, but frankly, it only took me to watch the gamespot video of him presenting Fable 2's dog to fall under the charm again. I just can't resist the guy and to be honest, I don't give a shit anymore whether he's really making the game he's talking about or not . Why ? Because Molyneux is just like Miyamoto, he's one of the guys that genuinely believe in games as a powerful media while retaining their entertainment form. So when Molyneux speaks, it's like when Miyamoto speaks, I really can't help but believe in the vision that he depicts.

And no, what he's talking about isn't just about some random high level design bullshit.

Not in this case, at least.

His proposition is unique because, for once, here's a creator who is not talking about games making you go all emotional over a character because more emphasis was put on writing or because the personality was written so. What he's talking about are fictitious characters demonstrating an illusion of free will; characters which, by seeming real AND in dependents, will give the player the power to choose who he's going to attach to and who he won't care about. And that, to me, is really something new because it creates the opportunity for the player to create/experience emotional side stories in an environment where the only thing written would be the context... hence, you really choose what is YOUR view on the characters.

And even if I doubt it's going to be successful the first time around, I think it is a great concept bolstered by actual gameplay elements that makes sense.

In the end, I think you've got to listen to Molyneux like you would listen to a sub-quantum mathematicians or space physicists : nothing they say is verifiable but hell, it makes one thinks.

[ Bonus Question: when evoking a gamer/player, should I write she/he/it or they? ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ Bonus Question: when evoking a gamer/player, should I write she/he/it or they? ]

Hah, linguists are debating about that. 'He/she' is cumbersome, 'they' is not strictly grammatical but at least it's not sexist like 'he' or 'she'. I use 'they'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the Miyamoto comparison, but he goes about it with a bit more class, whereas Molyneux does it at the expense of the game he is working on. I think by putting so much into showing how his latest game relates to the current thing he is gassing about, in this case by showing lots of the characteristics and little nuances the dog has, he takes away from the experience of playing the game, those features add little to most peoples’ desire to play the main game but they are the sort of features that add the icing to the game, and should be left for the player to discover.

A good analogy is how in star wars episode one everyone knew Darth Maul had a double ended lightsaber before the film came out, but in the film it is clear that when it is divulged that Darth Maul has a double ended LS it is meant to be shocking, yet that was completely spoiled, when those little touches are taken away from a game/movie by excess hype it can really reduce the overall charm. I know it is an inherent danger of following hype but if something is well marketed it should drum up the desire without taking away from the experience itself, but Molyneux doesn't achieve this, he leaves many feeling cheated by over promising features and over selling little features that give the game charm.

I think he does a lot of good for the industry as a whole but often at the expense of projects he works on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it is an inherent danger of following hype but if something is well marketed it should drum up the desire without taking away from the experience itself, but Molyneux doesn't achieve this, he leaves many feeling cheated by over promising features and over selling little features that give the game charm.

I think that's a good point. While I wasn't let down by Fable by any means (I thought it was great!), I also missed all the hype. I just kept hearing lots of people saying they were let down (including one guy who game tested it). It seems that he probably does a little more harm than good, sometimes, and I think it finally caught up with him with Fable... hence his rather nice apology.

Off topic a bit: We all know that Molyneux likes giving us the "freedom" to turn our characters into good or evil, ultimately leading to the lead characte growing horns or something.......... but really, that's such a linear reaction that's based on someone else's set of ideals. It's seemed to me for a while now that the whole system of being "recognized" for being "evil" or "good" is INCREDIBLY limiting..... It takes away the supposed "freedom" and leaves a challenge to be "good" or "evil" (who wants to be "middling"? :)).

Syndicate was the most successful and mature attempt at giving the player freedom to be good or evil, because the game pretty much ignored the player's actions..... it was truly down to the players set of ideals and their own conscience to decide what was "good" or "evil" - if it didn't bother you, you could just mow down a bunch of civilians instead of going around them... If it did, then you could just walk around. The game never "punished" you, so you were truly "free" to decide what to do.

I hope he's lost his obsession with judging the player through contrived "tests" and then giving characters horns or a halo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lionhead is great, and it's been made great by Molynaux.

A lot of the features in their games are truly progrssive, pushing new ideas into the industry. The Dog takes on a whole new aspect if you look at in light of the "inbedded interface" that Lionhead have being improving on for years - From B&W through to The Movies. It's all about repacing HUDs etc with feedback within the gameworld, and I for one find that very exciting.

Also, people complain about how all the suits from the publishers only care abuot money and stifle innovation. Molyneux is a man who is as passionate about games as any gamer, who wants to innovate and talk about possibilities and ideas and the future. And then people like yufster hate him for it. Seriously, it looks like Devs just can't win either way if you act like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's different but who wants kids in a game!? The dog could be fun but the rest is just a bit... wierd ¬¬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that's another good point I'd forgotten about Dan. I did actually love the GUI-less interface in The Movies and thought they almost got it spot on. When you play something like RollerCoaster Tycoon and other similar games with immensely complex menus it makes you really appreciate the fact that Lionhead had a damn good idea/point there.

I don't think The Movies did fantastically well, did it? I hope that doesn't mean the progression Lionhead made with top-down gaming interfaces there was lost. I don't want to get Supreme Commander and C&C 3 (I've played neither) plus whatever RTS/management games come out in the future and find they have shit, complex, unintuitive interfaces.

But that's just another good example of the stuff Lionhead have come up with. And while none of us know just how much input Molyneux has on all the ideas, considering his think tanking of the past it's probably quite a lot. He deserves respect, even if he does need to keep his gob shut a bit more when it comes to discussing his games (which I genuinely think he does out of passion and a desire to share, not to cause hype).

Good post Ginger, you're right when it comes to him hyping up smaller features in his gamer. I'd much rather discover those things myself, although in most of them I have as I tend to ignore and not be affected by game hype in general.

Edit: I forgot how excellent the building interface/technology in Black & White 2 was too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(including one guy who game tested it)

Oh, don't believe people who playtest a game. It's an infuriating process. I've done it a few times and can't make myself play the games once they're done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Molyneux is a man who is as passionate about games as any gamer, who wants to innovate and talk about possibilities and ideas and the future. And then people like yufster hate him for it. Seriously, it looks like Devs just can't win either way if you act like that.

Me thinks Dan is using Molyneux as a proxy in his war against Yufster, as she suggested (read relentlessly nagged) that he should get a job. Guys its time for the feuding and the fussing to end. Have a fight, Yufster gets a bat and a midget as Dan is a retired half Ninja.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not a retired ninja, he's just unemployed.

I'm not feuding or fussing... If Dan wants to fuck all his own shit up then that's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Dan just use his ninja mind tricks to turn the midget against Rusalka? I'd say we should leave the midget out of the fight. Maybe give her a bat and a particularly angry chicken or something. They're harder to reason with and confuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“And so it came to pass that one of the most recent interesting discussions on Thumbs was horribly derailed by a girl, a bat, a rabid chicken and half an unemployed ninja…”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic : I,for one, would like to get kids in game, just to be able to mess around with them a bit like what everybody did with B&W creature.

In a way, it could be an improvment over the old game Creatures mechanism : first you'd get attached because it's helpless and cute, then you'd try to turn it into someone that fits your expectation and then, watch them die as they disappointed you once too many

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back on topic : I,for one, would like to get kids in game, just to be able to mess around with them a bit

Haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now, that I read my post again, I can see where the source of your hilarity might lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids do add to a believable game world. But kids are usually very well protected in games (e.g. you can't beat the hell out of them). Something like that always slips into the virtual world because of some retards (e.g. a certain guy called Thompson).

I just hope that Fable 2's world is less restrictive, the paths in 1 were pretty small and stuff. It's one of the cool things from the TES games that you can pretty much go everywhere you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want to know is: can you shoot/stab/kick your dog to death yourself? Having that much power - over something which appears to be so pivotal to the game - would help foster empathy in the player, and therefore strengthen the emotional connection Herr Mollynorks is so desperate to nurture.

In my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the dog acts patially as some kind of interface, replacing the minimap or whatever, and you can leave it behind hten you just lost your map. So basically he's saying "you can do this! It might be something you really wanna do because you wanna be a cunt, but if you do it your gimping yourself."

I had a point but I forgot :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first you'd get attached because it's helpless and cute, then you'd try to turn it into someone that fits your expectation and then, watch them die as they disappointed you once too many

Just like real kids, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in. Just like animal abuse isn't something I'm down with in real life despite how I beat the shit out of my creature in B&W (I also played the good path in another file. I'm not a total shit. :shifty:) I'd be willing to fuck up a kid in some pretty major ways given the virtual opportunity just to see how the game would cope. For SCIENCE I say!

EDIT: Originally said "I'd be willing to fuck a kid up" until I realized that I could later be quoted as saying "I'd be willing to fuck a kid." That just wouldn't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the dog acts patially as some kind of interface, replacing the minimap or whatever, and you can leave it behind hten you just lost your map. So basically he's saying "you can do this! It might be something you really wanna do because you wanna be a cunt, but if you do it your gimping yourself."

I had a point but I forgot :sad:

It's a good point, whatever it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now