Jake

Idle Thumbs 198: Missing Molyneux

Recommended Posts

It's a shame Walker used the term "pathological liar" because it sounds like an insult.  But someone needed to ask Molyneux, "Hey, you have been saying a lot of stuff that isn't true, that it seems like you knew or should have known wasn't true.  Are you purposefully misleading people or are you..." -- I can't think of an alternative here that doesn't sound like an insult --  "...a chronic exaggerator?  ...not smart enough to realize you're lying?"

 

This quote here from Molyneux is incredibly damning and damaging to the whole idea of Kickstarter, and he really needs to have his feet held to the fire for it:

 

"There's this overwhelming urge to over-promise because it's such a harsh rule: if you're one penny short of your target then you don't get it. And of course in this instance, the behaviour is incredibly destructive, which is 'Christ, we've only got 10 days to go and we've got to make £100,000, for f**k's sake, lets just say anything'. So I'm not sure I would do that again."

 

The idea that it's okay for developers to just promise anything to hit that funding goal (even if they make apologetic noises about never doing it again) would be the death of crowdfunding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sad that people treated Molyneux as a lovable prankster when he was taking publisher money but treat him like a lying demon now that he's croudfunding. His behavior is not actually different, but people notice now that it's their money being taken at both ends instead of just one end, so now he's bad?

 

Reviews exist so we're to blame if we buy a finished game that doesn't do what Molyneux promised during development.  Hype never takes my money unless I'm dumb enough to pre-order.  I would hope that if Molyneux said to his publishers, "Give me X amount of money and I will deliver A, B, and C," but didn't give them B, C, or all of A, they would have some pretty hard questions for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression, from your explanation of OTC, is that it is the Supreme Commander of economic games. You look at it and say, "I know what this is! I love this, because I love building a giant robot!" Then you play it and everyone seems to be building stuff faster than you, and you realize you don't reeeeally know how mass and energy work, and why do my extractors keep shutting off? If you stick with it and dig in, you get a layer of base construction depth that isn't there with C&C or Starcraft, but that's because they are skinned the same but are actually a completely different game. So that makes me excited about it.

 

 

I haven't gotten to the Molyneux section of the cast yet, but from my time reading John Walker's stuff this seems basically par for the course. He has never seemed afraid to wear his heart on his sleeve, or to be brash, pushy, or demanding in interviews. This also isn't the first time he's interviewed Molyneux. So my impression from it (I read most but not all) is that is normal Walker, and Molyneux 100% needs to have some shade thrown at him. Those things, however, don't necessarily coexist in a productive or useful fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe John Walker's interview was the only way to get Molyneux to say the things he said, but that doesn't mean I have to like that that is the case.

Sorry there is no coherent throughline or thesis to this post.

I think this is it.  I I'm not super familiar with Molyneux, but he comes across in the RPS interview as someone who will avoid at all costs a candid conversation that is grounded in facts.  Has he been more honest ever in the past when handled less confrontationally? I seriously doubt it.

 

And I feel like I learned that from the interview something I didn't know before-- that this is someone disconnected from the consequencies of repeatedly exaggerating and lying about his work.  Possibly even sociopathic?

 

Secondly, I also see a huge amount of difference between game development financed through Kickstarter versus a traditional publisher from the point of view of games journalism reporting.  Publishers are assumed to be risk-saavy investors. Kickstarter funders are fans.  Kickstarted developers have a fundamental obligation to deal with the public in a straightforward manner during game development and reporters should recognize this obligation and difference in their reporting.

 

Thus his calling-out appears to have been long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take the Idle Thumbs "I feel old" sentiment, and one up it. Prior to this episode I had never heard the term "selfie stick", and I have no idea what it is. So get off my lawn!

 

Also I haven't made my way to the Molyneux discussion, but since Errol Morris got brought up its worth appreciating that Morris (and just to be clear I think he is incredible) gets away with amazing interview material he produces by exploiting the natural discomfort most people have when you put a camera in front of them. His technique of giving enough rope for people to hang themselves with wouldn't work against a trained politician or actor, but it is brutally effective when used to interview "ordinary people". I'm not at all confident that we should be regarding Morris' interview technique as ethically superior to Walker's.

 

As for the RPS interview, I have a lot of mixed feelings about it that I'm still trying to unpack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so the RPS interview thing.

 

I listen to a lot of radio and TV interviews, beyond the realm of video games, and this was really 'normal' to me. That is, it isn't some new, outrageous thing. I've seen it before over and over again, and most of you have seen it before too if you're avid fans of The Daily Show - you just probably don't recognize it because (I'm stereotyping here) you probably agree with Jon's position to begin with. Walker's interview with Molyneux was really 'off the cuff' with how they both spoke to each other too. It wasn't a formal "Here we are on ABC news!" affair. It was a moment of, say, Jon Stewart having Bill O'Reilly on his show.

 

To be fair, I'm not a fan of Jon Stewart when he does this either. Stewart is at his best when he has a guest on that he sorta agrees but also disagrees with, so they have some common ground to have some real discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARGH WHY DOESN'T ANYONE PAY ATTENTION TO ME WHEN I TALK ABOUT LINK'S AWAKENING

 

Here's the interview that the "suspicious types" quote was pulled from: http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/ds/zelda/1/0

 

Link's Awakening is my favorite Zelda game. Because it was the first handheld game, the devs weren't quite sure what the game should be, and threw in some weird stuff. There's the aforementioned Twin Peaks inspiration, but there are other things like the occasional sidescrolling sub-room with goombas in it, or how one of the dungeons has a few Kirby enemies that inhale you and spit you out. The item trade sequence subquest begins by winning a Yoshi doll from a crane game, and you get the message "You got a Yoshi Doll! Recently, he seems to be showing up in many games!" when you pick it up. And my favorite thing: Zelda isn't even in the game.

 

It was the first game I can remember having an emotional response other than "video games are sweet!"

 

You find out that the island exists as the dream of the Wind Fish, and all the dungeon bosses are nightmares that are keeping the Wind Fish asleep because they can exist indefinitely within the dream. When you defeat the nightmares, the Wind Fish awakes, and there's a short montage of all the people and places on the island fading into nothingness. I had a thought along the lines of "Oh, no, all those people are just gone now, aren't they?" It was kind of heartbreaking.

 

It also has the best version of the Zelda Overworld theme, found in the Tal Tal Heights: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What irks me about the RPS interview is that it felt like John was trying to "win" the interview. I think he was trying to get responses where he could say "Ah-HAH! Another point for me!" This might be great entertainment for people who wanted to watch Molyneux squirm, but it's not terribly useful.

 

In general I get rubbed the wrong way when people think that there's a "win condition" in things that just aren't meant to be a competition. But unfortunately that's how most internet arguments work, you're either for or against. Or at the very least, people will do all that they can to take someone's argument and distill it to something that affirms their beliefs. 

 

As for interviews do I like, I love Bill Moyers' conversations. I always feel like he asks thought provoking questions that help me understand more about what his guests are there to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Jake brought up Donald Rumsfeld it reminded me that the actual right context for out-and-out hostility in interviews is Louis CK asking Donald Rumsfeld if he's a lizard person on Opie and Anthony:

 

 

EDIT: Wow, even this is more civil than that RPS interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in the take from some of the U.K. Thumbs. My vague impression is the U.K. has more of a tradition of really harsh interviews compared to the U.S. where we place a higher premium on decorum, and the act of shaming other people is frequently looked down upon. But maybe it reads the same, I'm really unsure on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in the take from some of the U.K. Thumbs. My vague impression is the U.K. has more of a tradition of really harsh interviews compared to the U.S. where we place a higher premium on decorum, and the act of shaming other people is frequently looked down upon. But maybe it reads the same, I'm really unsure on the matter.

 

I've spent a decent amount of time in the UK and tend to follow UK politics generally, and while the countries definitely have differences in approach, I think each country's particular brand of populist political journalism leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately the interviews that I think are the best tend to be a little harder to turn into sensational headline-grabbing affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've vacillated on just how bad I think that interview is, but I definitely do I agree with Argobot's take.  And I think there is a much more interesting story yet to be told about 22 Cans, and the likelihood of that story ever happening now is almost zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bummer in this country how little we respect or even understand what good reporting looks like. This is true in all areas, but the more specified your topic becomes, the worse the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets so fucking complicated to me, to think about. If people really actually hate Molyneux and feel like he's just taking them for a ride, maybe they could just stop talking to, and talking about, him? That seemed to work pretty well to get Derek Smart entirely out of the conversation. But the truth is, people are fascinated with Molyneux and can't help but love him a little bit no matter what, so he will always be written about, and always enrage people, and they will always blame him for that. That chaps.

There's definitely something to be said about the internet being used to burn a strong hatred for people, like witch-hunting. People who care about video games so much are definitely using this time to really dig at Molyneux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Jon Stewartand the way this RPS interview was conducted, is exactly that they play to a certain crowd. Stewart gives horrible interviews (unless they're with fiction or neutral non-fiction authors) because it's clear that he's not really there to ask questions. He's there to posture for his audience and make everyone feel good that he's going to yell at the Bush exec who wrote the torture memo for 20 minutes. It can be incredibly cathartic when, as you say, you are predisposed to agree with Stewart's viewpoint, but in terms of adding information and clarity to a complex situation -- the whole point of an interview -- it does nothing. It's just hot air, the same as having Bill O'Reilly interview any left-leaning person on his show.

 

Compare that to the way people like Terry Gross or Diane Rehm interview their subjects. The questions are hard, but the interviewee has a chance to explain themselves, which in turn allows the interview to ask for further clarification on those explanations and you generally walk away from an interview having a better understanding of the personal actions that went into making a decision. In Stewart/Walker's version, you come away knowing exactly what you did when you started reading, which is whatever your negative opinion on the interview subject was. The press shouldn't be here to mollycoddle famous people, but they also shouldn't be just another voice of unconsidered, rabid judgement. If it's hard enough to get developers to open up about the difficulties of the industry, this kind of grandstanding, playing to the audience form of interviewing is just to going to guarantee that no developer will ever offer anything actually interesting or complicated about the work they do. We're trading access to information for a the momentarily satisfying, but ultimately useless, emotion.

As far as general philosophy / general conduct goes, I totally agree. In the case of Molyneux giving answers though, I don't think that approach would have worked. As in, we wouldn't have gotten information. His initial answer to why the prize winner has been ignored was, "Sometimes things fall through the cracks." Should that have gone unchallenged? Because that answer is ridiculous. One of the biggest publicity highlights of Godus was that prize, and it "slipped through the cracks" according to Molyneux.

 

A question I asked Sean, poorly worded and explained due to Twitter's limits, was about how this is enthusiast-press. Meaning, people come into stories like this with at least some understanding of what's going on, if not knowing everything there is to know so far. Limiting everything VG journalists write to just information does play into that weird Goobergate stuff. I definitely think there's room for people to express their opinion or show their emotion in things.

 

As far as Walker goes, again he blundered this and took it too far, but he at least went in the direction of not letting Molyneux slide on this. A lot of people I know in England have very strong negative opinions about things like Kickstarter, Steam's Early Access program, etc, and if I remember right Walker is definitely one of those folks. A lot of where he was coming from is probably rooted in that criticism of what can go wrong with crowdfunded projects. And he's not necessarily wrong - Molyneux, as a high-profile person in this game (of games) has extra responsibility if he's going to use that resource. Look at how Tim Schafer handled things about his KS. It was more straight-forward, no bullshit about avoiding responsibility, and that blew over within a week. Molyneux trying to wiggle around and avoid the consequence of less trust form consumers is really just making it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame Walker used the term "pathological liar" because it sounds like an insult.  But someone needed to ask Molyneux, "Hey, you have been saying a lot of stuff that isn't true, that it seems like you knew or should have known wasn't true.  Are you purposefully misleading people or are you..." -- I can't think of an alternative here that doesn't sound like an insult --  "...a chronic exaggerator?  ...not smart enough to realize you're lying?"

 

Okay, a quick note about pathologies since there was one interesting level to this conversation (I won't call it an "interview"). John Walker accused Molyneux of lying, maybe even pathologically. Molyneux on the other hand was explaining, or excusing, his behaviour by framing it in a way that was closer to another pathology, namely hypomania. I found that exchange fascinating.

 

In any case, my biggest issue was the use of the word "pathological" which I think should be used less lightly. Maybe I am too sensitive, being involved in projects on psychological pathologies, but there are other ways John could have asked the same question.

 

I am somewhat grateful for the article because it revealed so much about two people. It is interesting that a conversation which starts with an accusation of Molyneux lying finds Molyneux lost in half-truths and contradictions. Seen from that angle there was an actual through line in John Walker's questions, as it seems that while certainly not pathological, Molyneux is certainly loose with the truth even when he is not pitching a project.

 

As an interview it is flawed, but wow, what an engaging read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the biggest story to come out of your interview is about the interviewer, then you have failed. I'm all for asking the hard questions and getting answers, but that's not what Walker did at all and has hurt his audience as a result. Unlike politicians, game developers have no need to agree to interviews. They could very easily get away with not talking to the press. It's an unfortunate reality that the press needs to contort itself in some ways in order to gain access, but better that than having no access at all. Walker's infantile questioning will probably ensure that more developers think twice before agreeing to be interviewed by him or RPS. He did nothing to add to the conversation, except make Molyneux look sympathetic. Not only does his interview fail at showing what went wrong, it failed at providing any clear answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree that it inherently makes Molyneux look sympathetic.  Some people might have felt that way, but it's clear that a bunch of other people didn't.  I disagree with Walker's approach, and I think it was counterproductive for the long run.  But I have no more sympathy for the man now than I did before that interview. 

 

I'm also not sure that there is a situation in which one gets clear answers from Molyneux about what has happened, no matter the interview style.  He's either an eccentric visionary or an extraordinarily gifted snake oil salesman (or a combination), but from everything I've ever heard people describe talking to him as being mesmerizing or hypnotic.  I've run that interview back through my head a few times look for ways to guide Molyneux into a more enlightening answer, and I'm not sure it would have happened. 

 

I'd love to hear the audio of the interview, if it were recorded.  I wonder if it sounds more or less harsh in context, instead of just having a transcript. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's easy to overstate how detrimental an aggressive approach to an interview can be. It's not like this is the first time we've seen John Walker engage in a confrontational interview, and someone like John Stewart never appeared to be wanting for guests to interview.

 

I have two main criticisms of Walker's approach, neither of which have to do with tone.

 

1. The use of the term "pathological". Using clinical phrases like that is something all laypeople should cut out of their vocabulary and leave to trained psychologists, etc. In addition to being needlessly insulting and confrontational from the get go, it risks adding to the stigma of mental illness.

 

2. There were points when Walker's criticisms got far too general which is why I think a lot of game developers in particular are reacting so negatively to this interview. They end up seeing themselves as included Walker's criticism of Molyneux, and that hardly seems fair.

 

As far as the journalistic merits are concerned, I don't think there is some alternative interview with Molyneux where the reader comes away better informed. My impression of Molyneux is that he is a very calculating salesman that hasn't been in touch with the day to day aspect of game development for quite some time. I think the image of him as a wild-eyed idealistic game developer is part of what he is selling. But because of this I don't think there's any scenario where you actually get any useful information out of him. The real journalistic work happens when 22 Cans goes out of business and you secure interviews with people like that one Kickstarter backer who has been the harshest critic of Godus who they then brought on board to work on the game. You get people like that to start talking, and then you end up with some real journalistic work like when Rob Zacny published that piece on the demise of THQ. But all of that happens in the aftermath of a disaster unfortunately.

 

I don't know where that leaves the Molyneux interview. Either you think the man deserves to get burned a bit or you don't. That's the part I'm ambivalent about because I'm not sure to what degree I believe shame as an emotion can be used as a stick for better behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real journalistic work happens when 22 Cans goes out of business and you secure interviews with people like that one Kickstarter backer who has been the harshest critic of Godus who they then brought on board to work on the game. You get people like that to start talking, and then you end up with some real journalistic work like when Rob Zacny published that piece on the demise of THQ. But all of that happens in the aftermath of a disaster unfortunately.

 

I don't know where that leaves the Molyneux interview. Either you think the man deserves to get burned a bit or you don't. That's the part I'm ambivalent about because I'm not sure to what degree I believe shame as an emotion can be used as a stick for better behavior.

But it's not unreasonable for games journalists to try to hold kickstarted game developers to a higher transparency standard than THQ owned developers, for example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the biggest story to come out of your interview is about the interviewer, then you have failed. I'm all for asking the hard questions and getting answers, but that's not what Walker did at all and has hurt his audience as a result. Unlike politicians, game developers have no need to agree to interviews. They could very easily get away with not talking to the press. It's an unfortunate reality that the press needs to contort itself in some ways in order to gain access, but better that than having no access at all. Walker's infantile questioning will probably ensure that more developers think twice before agreeing to be interviewed by him or RPS. He did nothing to add to the conversation, except make Molyneux look sympathetic. Not only does his interview fail at showing what went wrong, it failed at providing any clear answers.

 

I don't agree with that at all. I think it reflects on Walker, this interview is definitely who he is as a writer and interviewer: a potentially inflammatory guy who is willing to throw things out to see if he's right that they stick, Molyneux, this interview is definitely who he is as a personality: a sympathetic, smooth talking visionary who can't actually fully substantiate many of the things he claims, and their rapport together. They have definitely had one on one time before. I know for sure RPS has done a good deal with Molyneux. They have some, by game industry standards, pretty scathing headlines and pieces about him, Curiosity, Godus, etc going back three years now. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?s=molyneux

 

How do Walker and Molyneux, both of whom as far as I'm concerned lived up to their reputation, have anything to do with someone like Patrick Klepek getting candid interview time with a beleaguered developer? You have to trade on your own work, not on "Games Journalism" as some sort of umbrella, nor "Game Development" for that matter. If someone is willing to be candid and forthcoming, why should they be concerned about this kind of interview taking place? You can make an agreement prior to not discuss things. And you can always end a conversation if things become vitriolic.

 

I really would be interested in Sean's thoughts. One of the articles in the link is his sit-down with Molyneux a couple of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a sympathetic, smooth talking visionary who can't actually fully substantiate many of the things he claims

This really glosses over Molyneux's bungling of answers given. He swears to Walker time and time again about an employee's time started, and then right there next to him someone at 22 Cans corrects him on it. That's not smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old PC game manuals were the best. My favorite of all time is from a game that almost no one I know ever played, Maelstrom. This was published by Don Bluth Multimedia, which was apparently a short lived attempt for Bluth to develop a publishing company across multiple mediums (I think, I'm not entirely sure what the deal was). You play the overlord of this planet, and the entire manual is written as though it were a customized executive summary to introduce you to your new job as overlord, and all the basic keyboard stuff is introduced as being part of your Executron Holodesk. The only thing not in universe is one of the most ambitious descriptions of a game I've ever read. The final 10 pages or so are a space pirate's tips on how to best survive your likely to be short lived presidency. I've spoiled some example pages from it. Still makes me smile rereading these 20 some years later.

post-33601-0-14537400-1424386222_thumb.jpg
post-33601-0-31031400-1424386232_thumb.jpg
post-33601-0-67696100-1424386238_thumb.jpg
post-33601-0-22538800-1424386248_thumb.jpg

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