D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No references to Wasteland. I would strongly recommend you actually read the the entire interview carefully. There's a lot in there because it lasted over an hour. I'd also suggest reading Rich Stanton's opinion piece on Eurogamer, it includes an interesting insight of Peter Molyneux exaggerating [to Rich Stanton, then a reviewer] about features in Fable 2 just before the game launched. Not a case where features where cut from development, but where they were never in there to start with.I believe in there. My point is simply this , Its easy to go after Peter cause he has been a public face for a long time and there is this negative energy around him. He has basicly become the whipping boy for this.
If you feel that Peter deserves this because he promises things and doesn't always deliever then that's fine.
You say "deserve this" like he's being unfairly treated. While the RPS interview certainly was blunt, they weren't throwing accusations at him, they were presenting him with his own statements and claims. I personally have no problem for someone who freely put themselves in front of the press to make money to then to held account by that same press. The guy took people's money on Kickstarter and he admitted he knew he couldn't deliver the game on that budget but nonetheless he promised pledge rewards that would never be possible.
But at the same time Rock paper shotgun needs to call up every developer over every game ever made because its been a very very long time since I've played a game that has hit on everything that was promised by the developers and done so in the original time frame.
Huge AAA games manage to do this: Grand Theft Auto, Uncharted, The Last of Us. As do AA games like Shadow of Mordor, Infamous Second Son, Metro Redux and Far Cry 4. But some games do sometimes need to change during development. Sometimes development is extended and misses the target launch, sometimes features get dropped or changed, sometimes it's a bit of both.
What developers generally don't do is start developing games where they know the funding is insufficient (Godus) at inception or make promises about game features being present in virtually complete games when they aren't complete and there's obviously no time to add them (Fable 2). It's Molyneux's consistent failures over many years that single him out.
Just look at Bungie , one of the greatest developers out there with a massive budget and they failed to provide what they promised with a game that lacked content , didn't offer the if you see it you can go to it game play , didn't offer the massive online experience and so much more.
Again, the difference is the occasional diversion from the original vision and making a career out of doing it.
Last edited by a moderator: