Interview Peter Molyneux wants You to see the Dragon

[Jason]

Tags: Lionhead Studios

In an interview at GDC, <b><a href="http://www.lionhead.com/Fable2/screenshots/WhatsTHAT!_1280.jpg" target="blank">Peter Molyneux</a></b> patiently <a href="http://kotaku.com/5495408/a-rare-argument-for-more-linear-video-game-stories" target="blank">explained to Kotaku</a> why branching storylines are for chumps.
<br>
<blockquote>What we found is that if you over-branch the storylines [is that] if there was one route you went down and got one reaction — and a completely different route got another reaction — we found that people would get really disappointed. They always felt they were on the wrong path. They always felt, ah, I wanted to see the dragon!</blockquote>
<br>
The more I hear from this guy the more I think he's actually some kind of modern day bodhisattva. But instead of leading us to Nirvana, he regularly blesses us with these little moments of smug superiority, like pearls left on a dirt path.
<br>
<br>
<i>Thanks to PlanHex for the tip</i>

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Can't people just play the game again and choose the other routes? If the game is good, it's not gonna be a problem, is it?

 

[SuicideBunny]

first branching is bad because you can't talk about it, now that? why the hell can't he just shut the fuck up? WHY?

 

[Yeesh]

Can't people just play the game again and choose the other routes? If the game is good, it's not gonna be a problem, is it?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his point. I mean are we talking exclusively about 2-branch systems, or say 4- or 8- ? I mean, really, how many times do you expect people to play a game? And how much effort do you expect devs to put into content that's only going to be seen by 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/8 of players?

I'm only saying there's a real and inherent tension between quality and the sort of choice that forecloses large swathes of content.

 

[Topher]

If people are dissapointed with the path they chose it's because you designed the paths poorly.

Sacrifice the sister and get the most powerful sword in the game, save her and get... oh yeah.

 

[bhlaab]

There shouldn't be a path or paths so much as a formless sludge

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Man, that guy is out of control.























































Then again, so am I.

 

[Shannow]

Can't people just play the game again and choose the other routes? If the game is good, it's not gonna be a problem, is it?

And what if the gameplay is a total bore as in most modern games and the halfway interesting C&C story parts are separated by droves of mindless filler combat?

 

[SuicideBunny]

thank you for ruining the joke by explicitly stating what it was meant to imply.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

 

[Shannow]

thank you for ruining the joke by explicitly stating what it was meant to imply.

It's early in the morning. I missed the second part. I'm sorry.

 

[SuicideBunny]

awww, i can't be mad at you...

 

[ChristofferC]

Hey Peter, don't make shitty games and people will play them several times.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Can't people just play the game again and choose the other routes? If the game is good, it's not gonna be a problem, is it?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his point. I mean are we talking exclusively about 2-branch systems, or say 4- or 8- ? I mean, really, how many times do you expect people to play a game? And how much effort do you expect devs to put into content that's only going to be seen by 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/8 of players?

I'm only saying there's a real and inherent tension between quality and the sort of choice that forecloses large swathes of content.

I don't think you really need to have completely different story paths. Deus Ex often gets praised for its interactivity, and it has a completely linear main story. What it does, however, is give you plenty of ways to interact, large maps with multiple paths through (non-linear maps, not non-linear story), opportunities for emergent gameplay, and rewards for exploration. Where there is deviation, it involves using the same characters on the same maps in a different way, so there isn't any need for new assets or massive extra programming.

All that adds up to give the illusion of freedom, even though the amount of actual freedom is limited. And most importantly, it doesn't leave the player with obvious ways around a problem that are shut off just because the story doesn't let you - the boundaries are still there, but they are plausible and hence don't stick out at you.

 

[Globbi]

They always felt, ah, I wanted to see the dragon!

Because the game was shit and devs put branching just for the sake of praising the game having branches. Insead, the game should allow to kill "the Dragon", help "the Dragon", use "the Dragon" and whatever else. Everyone gets to see the awesome dragon, on which artists worked for months so it could have been showed in trailers and demos.

 

[janjetina]

Methinks he's been chasing the dragon one time too many.

 

[Fens]

molineux moulinex wants to see the cougar

 

[Scroo]

'nuff said.

 

[JarlFrank]

I'd fucking love a game that branches heavily and has even some hard to find hidden content. That would be a good excuse to play the game three times and explore every nook and cranny. If there is *no* hidden stuff, and the game is completely linear, I will play it probably only once because what's the point of playing multiple times if every playthrough is the same?

 

[Anonymous]

MOLYFAG!

 

[Raghar]

I'd fucking love a game that branches heavily and has even some hard to find hidden content. That would be a good excuse to play the game three times and explore every nook and cranny. If there is *no* hidden stuff, and the game is completely linear, I will play it probably only once because what's the point of playing multiple times if every playthrough is the same?

Playing 70 hour game multiple times? When there are so many free of charge obtainable alternatives...

 

[Micmu]

I'd fucking love a game that branches heavily and has even some hard to find hidden content. That would be a good excuse to play the game three times and explore every nook and cranny. If there is *no* hidden stuff, and the game is completely linear, I will play it probably only once because what's the point of playing multiple times if every playthrough is the same?

They did a market research and found out that most players (tm) play the game only once and up to 20 hours, then move to the next one.
And such are many mainstream piece of shit excuses of a game. Exceedingly short and utterly linear.

 

[Yeesh]

I don't think you really need to have completely different story paths. Deus Ex often gets praised for its interactivity, and it has a completely linear main story. What it does, however, is give you plenty of ways to interact, large maps with multiple paths through (non-linear maps, not non-linear story), opportunities for emergent gameplay, and rewards for exploration. Where there is deviation, it involves using the same characters on the same maps in a different way, so there isn't any need for new assets or massive extra programming.

All that adds up to give the illusion of freedom, even though the amount of actual freedom is limited. And most importantly, it doesn't leave the player with obvious ways around a problem that are shut off just because the story doesn't let you - the boundaries are still there, but they are plausible and hence don't stick out at you.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the ability to interact with the challenges, and to progress through the environment, and to solve quests in all different ways is a good thing. But that doesn't really address the issue here, which is that giving the player tangible choices which leads to the foreclosure of one or more significant chunks of content:
1. encourages multiple playthroughs, but
2. makes people sad

And while I suspect that some might take the view that the sad people can go fuck themselves for not being hardcore enough to play the game 2 or 3 times, and the devs can go fuck themselves for not making a game so good that most people want to play it 2 or 3 fucking times, I'm afraid I cannot agree.

I'd fucking love a game that branches heavily and has even some hard to find hidden content. That would be a good excuse to play the game three times and explore every nook and cranny. If there is *no* hidden stuff, and the game is completely linear, I will play it probably only once because what's the point of playing multiple times if every playthrough is the same?

Playing 70 hour game multiple times? When there are so many free of charge obtainable alternatives...

70 hours, 50 hours, even 30 hours. I mean for christ's sake. I know, we like RPGs. But do you really think that in this age of multi-million dollar budgets, game designers can afford to think in terms of pleasing a tiny (albeit distinguished and charming) group of fervent re-players instead of designing around the reality that the average person is going to want to play through a game ONCE, and that the percentage that actually plays through more than TWICE has got to be... really tiny.

And even from our perspective, think about it. This is the age of torrent. Back when I was a kid, if you wanted to steal a game you had to fucking sneak it out of Electronics fucking Boutique. Now you have every game released right at your fingertips. Who has time to play them all, let alone play them again and again and again? The RPG genre in particular lends itself to some mighty long games in the first place. Is it crazy for people and devs to want a single playthrough to hit all the best content in one tiny, 50-hour experience?

 

[Black]

I bet Peter would love to show his dragon to some kids.
If you know what I mean!

 

[JarlFrank]

I'd fucking love a game that branches heavily and has even some hard to find hidden content. That would be a good excuse to play the game three times and explore every nook and cranny. If there is *no* hidden stuff, and the game is completely linear, I will play it probably only once because what's the point of playing multiple times if every playthrough is the same?

Playing 70 hour game multiple times? When there are so many free of charge obtainable alternatives...

It doesn't have to be 70 hours. 70 hour games are usually too full of filler, anyways. Look at Dragon Age, it was artificially stretched out by boring obligatory combat encounters, and those are the reason why I played through the game only once, even though there were some C&C.

On the other hand, I've replayed Arcanum 5 times and still love starting up Morrowind occasionally and explore the countryside.

Game length is not important. Actual amount of non-copypasta content is important.