Molyneux promoted to creative director of MS games

[TheChefO]

After Fable 2 I tried to get into Fallout 3 but just couldn't. The world was dull, the characters were lacking charm and my character seemed generally out of place in the world.

Wow ... I felt the exact opposite.

I played Fable2 and thought it was game of the year ... until I put in time with Fallout3.

They are both very good games, but Fallout3 ruined other games for me.

I wonder if this difference of opinion is due to the split on Oblivion. I played Oblivion, but didn't like the serious fantasy world. Such that Fallout3 felt new even though I knew a lot of the things they did were done previously in Oblivion.

I liked the characters in FO3, liked the gameplay, the subtle music, the story, the size (correction, SIIIZE), the weapons, and the pace. It all just fit together so well.

sorry for the derail

And just to recap, Fable 2 was great, but I expect him to push Fable 3 even further. He needs to have his team working on this now for the next gen system (or for Natal ).

 

[obonicus]

If this is possible and you enjoy the game, why would you not want to do this?

Because it might not be possible. 'I have low standards' isn't a valid argument when defending a game.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Yet, nobody said anything about low standards. What was said, was if you choose to do nothing but 'mash buttons' then the game is going to be boring for you.

If you choose to experiment with the weapon system to create different combinations, the combat can be loads of fun.

In other words, the combat is exactly what was intended - As deep as the player wants it to be.

It seems more like you're using the 'game must be challenging to a gamer in order to capture my attention' argument.

 

[obonicus]

Yet, nobody said anything about low standards. What was said, was if you choose to do nothing but 'mash buttons' then the game is going to be boring for you.

No, that's not what was said. What was said is that if you only look on the bright side and ignore the negatives, you'll be happier. A truism, certainly, which if applied to anything real is indeed lowering standards. I even liked Fable 2, though, but I won't suddenly start saying that the combat system is good!

In other words, the combat is exactly what was intended - As deep as the player wants it to be.

Really? Let's try and not add ridiculous statements here because no matter how much you want, the game's never going to be NG or DMC or even GoW.

It seems more like you're using the 'game must be challenging to a gamer in order to capture my attention' argument.

Not at all. The point isn't that you can play the game with only melee. The point is that even if you mix magic and melee and ranged it's still not particularly interesting.

 

[I.S.T.]

If Fable 2 is anything like the first one, it has awkward as hell storytelling, hamfisted morality presented as intelligent writing, even more hamfisted choices regarding said hamfisted morality, etc.

I've watched my sister play the game, and it seems to be no better. =\ I was hoping they'd have improved over the last several years, but I guess they didn't. Oh, well. It was the gameplay that interested me the most in Fable 1. I hope I'm wrong.

Are any of his other games like this? Fable 1 is the only one of his games I've played.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No, that's not what was said. What was said is that if you only look on the bright side and ignore the negatives, you'll be happier. A truism, certainly, which if applied to anything real is indeed lowering standards. I even liked Fable 2, though, but I won't suddenly start saying that the combat system is good!



Really? Let's try and not add ridiculous statements here because no matter how much you want, the game's never going to be NG or DMC or even GoW.



Not at all. The point isn't that you can play the game with only melee. The point is that even if you mix magic and melee and ranged it's still not particularly interesting.

It's interesting that you say that since I pretty much just finished GoW on PSP using just 1 button for most combat. And yet I still though it was a pretty good game.

Heck most FPS games only have 1 button (fire) for most combat. And yet they still turn out to be quite enjoyable. CoD series for example.

I'm not sure why single button combat suddenly became "bad" just because Fable 2 uses it.

Regards,
SB

 

[P on the rocks]

I'm not sure why single button combat suddenly became "bad" just because Fable 2 uses it.

The point is not how many buttons are used but if winning fights is a trivial task. Most people will go for the path of least resistance. If battles are trivial, I don't feel like I contribute anything to the progress my character makes in the game and I get bored. I haven't really played Fable 2 but I have got a friend who is a lot worse than me in games and who got through the game without ever dying, so it went off my list.

Also I didn't like Fable 1 because I found the controls to be unresponsive, the characters ugly, the loading frequency annoying. Also the efforts the game made to create an illusion of a living world failed and got annoying really fast. The random 'chicken-chaser" comments felt robotic, the ability to buy a new nick-name was strange at best, the sense of freedom was not there. I could pretty much attack anyone but for some reason a leader of thieves or something I met early on couldn't die probably because the story needed him later. I went out of the region through a loading screen, came back and noone cared that I have attacked them one minute earlier IIRC.

Now, you can call it "visionary" that the game allows me to attack everybody. But it's just a shift from one illusion breaking thing to another. If the game allows me to attack everybody then it should have the game mechanics to back it up.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Fable II was only brought up as an example of where expectations were or were not met. This isn't really the thread to debate opinions on Fable 2, only to voice them with respect to opinions of Peter Molyneux and his creations.
[/modhat]
I haven't played Fable 2 and thus have no opinion on the effectiveness of the one-button system. My point though wasn't that it would (or not) work, but that it was advertised as a game changing aspect to Fable 2, Lionhead reinventing gaming and making it accessible etc., but I can't say I've seen the impact of that, through excited forum talk or developers copying the system. Similarly the dog, which every player was supposed to fall in love with and which was supposed to create an emotional involvement unprecedented in games. It may have worked quite well, but I don't see the gaming landscape shifting with developers trying to emulate Lionhead's success with empatic characters.

Molyneux is very enthusiastic about the ideas at Lionhead and what they are trying to do, but his lofty goals rarely make it to reality, certainly not with the impact one would expect if the results were as painted during development were realised. It's very easy for creative types to run away with an idea. Molyneux has recognised he's been more vocal than is sensible, and spoken of dreams as if they could be expected. I can unserstand and forgive that, but it doesn't change the view I have of the creations coming out of Lionhead that are good, solid games, but which don't deliver on expectations and potential. If he was at the helm of a lot of studios (and this role isn't described as such, he's just facilitating collaboration between teams and helping them get from from each other), I fear he met set unreachable targets (because he's aiming for the wrong ones) and the games would suffer.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Because it might not be possible. 'I have low standards' isn't a valid argument when defending a game.

That really wasn't the argument, I was saying that Fable 2 came together extremely well if you exploited it's potential.

That certainly can't be said for any game, most games fall well short of being satisfying no matter how you try. The combat in Fable was fluid, fast and extremely polished, and is definately deserving of some praise for what it accomplished.

They made a system where literally anyone could play with ease, but skilled players could do very fun combos, with a ton of experimentation and different approaches available.

They created a shooting system that could belong in a 3rd person shooter, the ability to disarm opponents, shoot limbs/head shots, a magic spells such as warp and slow time which were perfect when combined with melee/ranged attacks, melee counters, I mean the combat has depth.

The only true negative here is the difficulty, or lack thereof for skilled players. But the fun factor of the combat goes a long way to alleviating that problem IMO. Still I would've really liked to see a much harder difficulty level...

 

[scooby_dooby]

but I can't say I've seen the impact of that, through excited forum talk or developers copying the system. .

How do you ever see the impact of a new system 9 months after it's release? It's a very odd expectation... you can't expect developers to incorporate entirely new play mechanics 6-8 months before release of their title.

I would argue that to measure impact, you'll have to wait 2-3 years and observe the genre to see whether other developers are 'borrowing' the play mechanic.

For example, Gears of War, within the first year of it's release, there weren't many titles that showed any influence, but look around at action games today and there's no denying the impact that has had on the entire 3rd person shooter genre.

The dog was awesome, I think almost everyone who played the game ended up feeling that way. So, I would guess that developers borrowing on that idea in particular is just a matter of time.

 

[obonicus]

That really wasn't the argument, I was saying that Fable 2 came together extremely well if you exploited it's potential.

That certainly can't be said for any game, most games fall well short of being satisfying no matter how you try. The combat in Fable was fluid, fast and extremely polished, and is definately deserving of some praise for what it accomplished.

You're right, I'm sorry. I realized afterwards that my post came out a lot more contentious and hostile than I wanted it to be, I just couldn't think of a different way to phrase it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Fable II was only brought up as an example of where expectations were or were not met. This isn't really the thread to debate opinions on Fable 2, only to voice them with respect to opinions of Peter Molyneux and his creations.
[/modhat]
I haven't played Fable 2 and thus have no opinion on the effectiveness of the one-button system. My point though wasn't that it would (or not) work, but that it was advertised as a game changing aspect to Fable 2, Lionhead reinventing gaming and making it accessible etc., but I can't say I've seen the impact of that, through excited forum talk or developers copying the system. Similarly the dog, which every player was supposed to fall in love with and which was supposed to create an emotional involvement unprecedented in games. It may have worked quite well, but I don't see the gaming landscape shifting with developers trying to emulate Lionhead's success with empatic characters.

Molyneux is very enthusiastic about the ideas at Lionhead and what they are trying to do, but his lofty goals rarely make it to reality, certainly not with the impact one would expect if the results were as painted during development were realised. It's very easy for creative types to run away with an idea. Molyneux has recognised he's been more vocal than is sensible, and spoken of dreams as if they could be expected. I can unserstand and forgive that, but it doesn't change the view I have of the creations coming out of Lionhead that are good, solid games, but which don't deliver on expectations and potential. If he was at the helm of a lot of studios (and this role isn't described as such, he's just facilitating collaboration between teams and helping them get from from each other), I fear he met set unreachable targets (because he's aiming for the wrong ones) and the games would suffer.

Well the same arguments can also be used for his efforts from Bullfrog that many proclaimed as revolutionary, etc...

But yet, we've not seen anything Populous like, nor anything all that similar to Magic Carpet or Dungeon Keeper.

It doesn't mean that those games (and likewise those at Lionhead) didn't try to push the boundaries of PC (and now console) gaming. Pushing gaming beyond what it's currently at doesn't mean it didn't push gaming just because noone else emulated it. ICO for example pushed expectations of what to expect from gaming and yet noone has emulated its gaming style. Same goes for Katamari Damarci (probably spelled it wrong as I always do).

Even if he fails more often than he succeeds, you still have to respect the fact that he's at least trying to push the boundaries of what is expected from PC/console gaming rather than just regurgitating the same tried and true formulas with just a small tweak here and there.

And more importantly (other than Black and White) he's done so while still, for the most part, keeping them accessible to a wide audience.

IMO, we need more people like him that are willing to dream big. Just like we need people that are willing to just regurgitate the same old game styles (because we love some of those tried and true game styles).

I think the only reason he gets more flak than some other devs that promise big things is that he really can't keep it to himself. So he's like a polarizing figure that people like to point at and call names.

A lot of devs dream big and don't deliver on their dreams. The big difference is, most of those devs don't bother to tell anyone but their own dev team what their dream is. So once a game is released virtually noone knows that the dream was cut back. Molyneux on the other hand is quite happy to blab to everyone that will listen what his dreams are.

BTW - along those lines. Anyone other than me remember what Carmacks stated dreams for Quake originally were? It was SIGNIFICANTLY different from what Quake was finally scaled down to be. With virtually all of the original stuff Carmack was hyping for Quake removed. Unreal ring a bell with promised features that never made it to fruition?

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

I disagree strongly, if only because by that logic Dr. Derek Smart, Ph.D. would get a ton of credit just for trying and promising.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I disagree strongly, if only because by that logic Dr. Derek Smart, Ph.D. would get a ton of credit just for trying and promising.

Well if he had actually released something that sold millions I would certainly agree.

I still respect him for trying to to make a galaxy starship simulator. And was actually somewhat successful, though implementation was a bit too technical and hardcore, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

Well if he had actually released something that sold millions I would certainly agree.

What does this have to do with anything? We're not talking about selling games, we're talking about whether the (gaming) world is better or worse for someone who promises the world and never delivers. That's what Derek Smart does.

I still respect him for trying to to make a galaxy starship simulator. And was actually somewhat successful, though implementation was a bit too technical and hardcore, IMO.

Okay, at least you're consistent. I strongly disagree.

 

[Tap In]

, we're talking about whether the (gaming) world is better or worse for someone who promises the world and never delivers. .

actually the thread WAS about a new MGS man who undeniably has an incredible amount of game experience heading the division. that's a good thing regardless what you think of him personally.

as for "promising the world" it's a shame you feel the need to be so critical of someone who simply has hopeful aspirations for games whether or not the hardware and development is capable of those goals at this moment in time.

The biggest thing to me about this news is not whether or not Peter is a genius or has fulfilled some promises, that's just cannon fodder. the biggest news to me is that it means that Project Natal is going to be made very viable on this and the next machine.

 

[obonicus]

actually the thread WAS about a new MGS man who undeniably has an incredible amount of game experience heading the division. that's a good thing regardless what you think of him personally.

Wait, so we can use Molyneux' experience as a positive, but not a negative?

as for "promising the world" it's a shame you feel the need to be so critical of someone who simply has hopeful aspirations for games whether or not the hardware and development is capable of those goals at this moment in time.

'What we're doing is so advanced even sci-fi hasn't conceived of it' is merely 'hopeful aspirations'? Do you really think that at some later point in time we're going to see the damn-near Strong AI Peter keeps promising?

The biggest thing to me about this news is not whether or not Peter is a genius or has fulfilled some promises, that's just cannon fodder. the biggest news to me is that it means that Project Natal is going to be made very viable on this and the next machine.

Why would you think this? Rare is already working on Natal games, is this Molyneux' doing? And otherwise we have Milo & Kate.

 

[TheChefO]

the biggest news to me is that it means that Project Natal is going to be made very viable on this and the next machine.

Agreed.

Not only Natal, but games which use it in interesting and different ways.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Wait, so we can use Molyneux' experience as a positive, but not a negative?

I'm not sure what out of Molyneux' experience can be taken as a negative?

That he has bigger dreams than he could possibly deliver with a small studio? I'm pretty sure almost all devs fit that shoe to some degree. Just that most devs are smart enough to keep their mouths shut so the public doesn't actually know the difference between what they wanted and what they delivered.

Pretty much everything he's helmed and released has been successful and not just a small tweak of something that already exists.

Even Black and White, the closest thing he's had to a failure still sold well enough to release a sequel.

And now he's presumably got more resources available to help realize some of his more grandiose visions (although I hope he's not honestly trying to make a Milo simulation game).

I dunno, perhaps because I've liked all his games with the exception of Black and White I don't view him as a failure.

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

I'm not sure what out of Molyneux' experience can be taken as a negative?

After this reply I'm going to drop out, because honestly, either you're being obtuse on purpose or I'm somehow unable to make my point to you and I don't know what to do to remedy that.

What can be taken as a negative? Well, if his 'positive' experience is that he has directed very many successful games, then clearly, the fact that since Lionhead not a single one of his games have managed to deliver what was promised must be a negative. No, promising more than you can deliver is not a good thing. Being full of dreams is wonderful, but I don't play dreams, and unattainable dreams mean nothing to me, the consumer.