Jake

Idle Thumbs 198: Missing Molyneux

Recommended Posts

I remember reading a breathless article back in 2006 in Gamasutra about this great new way of organising game development called agile development. Elsewhere in the tech industry, agile development would not have been news.

I've harboured a suspicion ever since that game developers, as people who mostly never come from software development, are years behind the times and totally inexperienced when it comes to scoping and shipping a software product. On the other hand, most software developers can get away with shipping incremental product upgrades and almost never have to build an entirely new experience from scratch, which is why I tend not to spread that suspicion very far.

The people that I've seen that are getting very defensive about angry questions on why Godus is so late remind me of that suspicion again.

Saying that games are just software development belies a lack of game development experience. Software development is one component of making a game. It's also entertainment product development, which has a pretty wide sliding scale of how tamped down the schedule is, from project to project.

That said, there's still definitely a point when irresponsibility comes into play, but there is not a 1:1 correlation between Traditional Software Development and Game Development. To use a comfortingly familiar analogy, game development has all the problems of a major theme park and a major zoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Office is kind of a special case - Word and Excel reached feature complete status years ago. There's really nothing more they can add or take away from it* that will actually improve it, but they have to justify a new version every few years because it's Microsoft's most consistent revenue stream.

 

*If they make it simpler, someone will refuse to upgrade and they shrink the revenue stream. Microsoft have know for a while now that most people only use about 10% of the features, which seems like a slam dunk for simplification except that which 10% is different for everyone.

 

I am super annoyed with Office 2013 for some reason. The company I work for finally went from 2010 to 2013 last year and at this point it just seems like they are making completely unnecessary changes that just force you to re-learn where things are located. I still use 2003 at home and I honestly can't think of anything from the 2007 versions onward that isn't present in some fashion in the 2003 version (although I'm sure there are some that I just never use). And what was up with changing the extension for Word documents from .doc to .docx several years back? Was that just their way of trying to kill backwards compatibility and force people to upgrade?

 

To be honest though, at this point I am at least sold on the ribbon interface. From a UI design standpoint, it is definitely a superior way to communicate where things are, making it easier for people who are new to a program to find what they need. We implemented a Telerik WPF ribbon interface for our program and our clients have seen it as a vast improvement over our old interface as there is less hunting and pecking to find things. So I've come around on that at least. Aside from that layout re-organization though, the rest of the changes I've seen implemented in Office just seem minimal and unnecessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game screen now show the picture of naked men crying tears of blood, the screen fade to black to fade again to the game and now my character had became a werewolf.

 

AMAZING

 

 

Game development has all the problems of a major theme park and a major zoo.

 

When they opened Disneyland in 1956 nothing worked.

 

post-8337-0-34133600-1424448350_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of what the Thumbscast and A-bot have to say about this.

 

I can agree with the idea that Peter is a serial overpromiser, but I'm also curious what people expect to actually happen. In the course of developing a game, if a feature isn't working what should he do? He can't know that they won't be able to solve some problem before they start, and the nature of kickstarter isn't one to allow for indefinite development. Should he just push some busted feature live to fulfill the promise?

 

Also, I think it's funny that he was pilloried for saying that the nature of kickstarter practically begs you to overpromise, as that seems like a basic statement of fact. Everyone expects "stretch goals" but all that stuff was deliberately left out of the original pitch. When projects start getting successful, I've seen so many shoot for the moon. 

 

Have the vultures started circling around Star Citizen yet? They're like 30 million deep and their promising are exponentially greater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1955. Please.

 

This is correct but the Hammond quote gets it wrong.  I wonder if this takes Disney die-hards like Danielle out of the movie?  "I always knew John Hammond's park would fail because he didn't know his Disney history!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disliked a lot of the tone of the Molyneux RPS interview, and that opening question was pretty out there. But I also think that John asked a lot of very pointed and specific questions about things that nobody ever really pushes Molyneux on, and while I was grimacing my way through it I was also kind of saying "Jesus, thank you someone for saying this." The treatment of the Curiosity "winner" has been indefensibly poor, but that's the latest in over a decade - going on two decades, now, if we count Black & White as part of the trend - of "lovable dreamer" Molyneux promising the world, delivering mediocrity, and running off to the next snake oil pitch while throwing his last effort under the bus as he collects new money. There are people getting through college now who weren't even born when he started this dance, and this is the first interview I've seen where somebody was harsher with him than a shrug and a "you'll get 'em next time."

 

And in the interview he makes a categorical statement about the tenure of his game's new lead developer (who himself is a disgruntled crowdfunder who probably didn't back Godus thinking he would eventually have to try to save it, nor did the other backers think that Peter would run off to a new game before finishing this one, but I digress) and that statement is immediately shown to be false. In the interview where Molyneux's addiction to saying untrue things is the topic! That's... amazing. And not in the good way of being amazed.

 

I don't think Molyneux is a deliberate liar, at least probably not usually. But I think he says whatever he wants to be true, in public, as a promise, every time, without any regard at all for whether it is true. And it's long past time for people to call him out on that instead of just laughing and saying "Oh, Peter."

 

I go back and forth on how I feel about Jim Sterling, but I thought

did a pretty fair job of showing the pattern of hype and disavowal that Molyneux's been following for so long. It doesn't feel like an idealistic dreamer anymore. It feels like a bit of a con. It's reasonable for that to get people upset, even in an industry where hype is so prevalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really, really bummed about Offworld Trading Company. I loved Civ IV, think Soren Johnson is a cool dude, and this game sounds extremely my shit.

 

But I'm not, ever, under any circumstance, buying something that says "Stardock" on the box, so I'm going to have to pass on it. It's the worst.

 

Ugh, I think in the back of my mind I knew this, but surpressed it. I really wanted to play this game, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of what the Thumbscast and A-bot have to say about this.

 

I can agree with the idea that Peter is a serial overpromiser, but I'm also curious what people expect to actually happen. In the course of developing a game, if a feature isn't working what should he do? He can't know that they won't be able to solve some problem before they start, and the nature of kickstarter isn't one to allow for indefinite development. Should he just push some busted feature live to fulfill the promise?

 

Also, I think it's funny that he was pilloried for saying that the nature of kickstarter practically begs you to overpromise, as that seems like a basic statement of fact. Everyone expects "stretch goals" but all that stuff was deliberately left out of the original pitch. When projects start getting successful, I've seen so many shoot for the moon. 

 

Have the vultures started circling around Star Citizen yet? They're like 30 million deep and their promising are exponentially greater. 

 

Speak candidly about literally anything, ever? Remember when Skullgirls did crowdfunding to expand their game, with explicit information about what they were asking for, why they were promising what they did, why it seemed like so much money for a seemingly small thing, and how the money would be allocated? Then they raised $800k instead of $150k? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/keep-skullgirls-growing

 

Remember when Peter Molyneux swore up and down that Fable: The Journey was not a rail shooter in any way, shape, or form, and you would have a deep, meaningful connection to your horse Cinnamon*, and then 100% of the game was an on-rails light gun game and you interacted with your horse by cleaning it with a little Wiimote-esque hand?

 

The issue isn't that features aren't working, or even that they can't deliver what was promised. It's the constant evasion, and protestation. Or even the admission that they bit off more than they can chew, instead of pointing the finger at the entire industry and say that they've caught a cold that's a symptom of all game development. At least Chris Roberts has a game on the books that is what he set out to make.

 

*Not actually the horse's name. It's just a damn good name for a horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go back and forth on how I feel about Jim Sterling, but I thought

did a pretty fair job of showing the pattern of hype and disavowal that Molyneux's been following for so long. It doesn't feel like an idealistic dreamer anymore. It feels like a bit of a con. It's reasonable for that to get people upset, even in an industry where hype is so prevalent.

 

Huh, I actually learned something from that Sterling video. I hadn't realized that part of Moly's pattern was to shit on his previous game. Like, not just look at its flaws, but straight up shit on it. It's not just that he overpromised early, it's that he sold the game like the holy grail in the days and weeks leading up to release, and then condemns the game as shit months or a year or two after its out and the hype train is building towards the next one.

I really can't think of another developer who I've ever seen do that, at least not multiple times in a row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I actually learned something from that Sterling video. I hadn't realized that part of Moly's pattern was to shit on his previous game. Like, not just look at its flaws, but straight up shit on it. It's not just that he overpromised early, it's that he sold the game like the holy grail in the days and weeks leading up to release, and then condemns the game as shit months or a year or two after its out and the hype train is building towards the next one.

I really can't think of another developer who I've ever seen do that, at least not multiple times in a row.

 

Yeah, I was surprised by the consistency. I knew I had seen it before, but I hadn't realized he's been doing it every time.

 

Again, less like a cute, funny dreamer, more like a con man. Which is an upsetting thing to realize after more than a decade of consistent behavior nobody's called out until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

People call out Molyneux basically every time he releases a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call him out for overpromising?  Yes.  But I've been paying attention to his schtick for years, and had never noticed that specific part of the pattern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, I think in the back of my mind I knew this, but surpressed it. I really wanted to play this game, too.

 

Maybe the fact that a friend of the site made it kinda balances it out? I dunno, I'm going back and forth on it. I guess I'll wait for it to come out of Early access and then decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

People call out Molyneux basically every time he releases a game.

 

Like Bjorn said, people call him out on "biting off more than he can chew" or "dreaming too big" or whatever, but no, I don't think until now I've seen anybody call him out on "shitting all over the last thing you promised would be amazing, in the service of promoting the next thing you're promising will be amazing," and doing that every time with absolutely no apparent self-awareness of his own history. It is the patter of a snake oil salesman, not an overly ambitious designer.

 

"No no no, don't look back at that, look over HERE! Well, not over here, there's nothing here yet, but look at what it WILL be. With your mind's eye."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the fact that a friend of the site made it kinda balances it out? I dunno, I'm going back and forth on it. I guess I'll wait for it to come out of Early access and then decide.

Just wait for it to be sold in a Humble Bundle and then slide the "Mohawk" slider all the way down:

 

ymJzGjh.png

 

That still feels really shitty for all the other non-horrible people associated with that game, like Soren.  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully support using "jammer" instead of "gamer," and I demand that the switch is instituted immediately.

 

Windjammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call him out for overpromising?  Yes.  But I've been paying attention to his schtick for years, and had never noticed that specific part of the pattern. 

I've definitely noticed and talked about it before, probably years ago on GAF, I dunno. It's a very stereotypical artist thing to do, right? Him and some other specific game dev, although I can't remember who and aghhh now it's gonna drive me crazy until I remember or forget to think about it.

 

Whether or not it's all that common for Real Artists to do, I guess I don't really know, but it definitely Fits The Stereotype of both hating your past work and always thinking you can do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not it's all that common for Real Artists to do, I guess I don't really know, but it definitely Fits The Stereotype of both hating your past work and always thinking you can do better.

 

Mayyyyybe, but that's a little harder to square when your public statements right before a game's release - after you're done making it but while preorders are still happening - all say "this is my best work ever, we are so proud of this game, I cannot wait for you to play it", and 9 months later it's all "yeah that was a trainwreck and it really didn't come together, but the NEXT one, oh man, get excited because we're gonna kill it." Every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a common sports game trope, for sure.

 

Right, and nobody thinks that behavior indicates "really well meaning artists who just can't quite hit the stars they're reaching for", with sports games. They think it's a crass attempt to re-package and sell more snake oil. 'Cause that's what it usually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayyyyybe, but that's a little harder to square when your public statements right before a game's release - after you're done making it but while preorders are still happening - all say "this is my best work ever, we are so proud of this game, I cannot wait for you to play it", and 9 months later it's all "yeah that was a trainwreck and it really didn't come together, but the NEXT one, oh man, get excited because we're gonna kill it." Every time.

 

I remember when Cryptic sold City of Heroes, one month's team update was all excited for new features and how awesome the game was, and then the very next was Cryptic saying they couldn't do what they wanted to do and CoH sucks so we're going to go play with a new toy over here (champions.) I never played Champions until very recently because I was so upset at the way they treated that transition. It really is possible to leave an old project behind gracefully "it was fun to work on, but now we want to try something else."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayyyyybe, but that's a little harder to square when your public statements right before a game's release - after you're done making it but while preorders are still happening - all say "this is my best work ever, we are so proud of this game, I cannot wait for you to play it", and 9 months later it's all "yeah that was a trainwreck and it really didn't come together, but the NEXT one, oh man, get excited because we're gonna kill it." Every time.

It was not a defense. I was just saying it's a thing.

 

Sports games is actually exactly what I was thinking of, thanks Badfinger. MMO devs definitely do it a lot, too, but that's generally because they realize something was a terrible idea, and less that they're trying to pimp their next product..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait for it to be sold in a Humble Bundle and then slide the "Mohawk" slider all the way down:

 

ymJzGjh.png

 

That still feels really shitty for all the other non-horrible people associated with that game, like Soren.  :unsure:

 

I mentioned this in the Offworld thread, and it isn't a comment on whether or not one should buy Offworld (I personally am planning to), but if the dislike of Stardock stems from a dislike of Brad Wardell, supporting Mohawk Games exclusively isn't a way around that, since Wardell is one of Mohawk's co-founders. I suppose you could still buy it a Bundle and just put the slider all the way toward "Charity," but right now, it doesn't seem like there's a way to support Mohawk without supporting Wardell, which I agree is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth bearing in mind that Stardock is principally a business software company. Strategy games are more of a passion project rather than their bread & butter. I think declining to buy OTC out of a dislike of Brad Wardell probably has a more negative impact on Soren than it does on Brad as a result. While I agree that Brad comes off as a fairly toxic individual, I'm not sure I agree that this is the hill on which to pick this battle.

 

edit: Apologies for the battle metaphor, I've got Ultimate General Gettysburg on my mind at the moment!

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