Company News Molyneux talking crazy again

[DarkUnderlord]

Molyneux said he believed one sword blow should be enough to kill in a game and he thought that if designers adopted a 'one-hit one-kill' system it would intensify the combat and the drama to unprecedented heights.

UT2004 > InstaGib Capture the Flag matches. Lots of fun!

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I'd like to see an rpg with more realistic kills. There should be less wading through the bodies of your enemies and grinding and more thought into setting up a situation you can survive. Maybe just less emphasis on combat. I've mentioned earlier that I'd like to see a game set in the modern day, or a real Call of Cthulhu BRP style RPG, where players are notoriously fragile (although I suppose to a lesser degree than paranoia). Molyneux is still an idiot though.

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't see what's so great about Ocarina / BG&E and I greatly prefer the written parsers in the Infocom and early Sierra games to the SCUMM keyword, later Sierra GUIs (even SQ4 where you can sniff and lick all sorts of crap) and later LucasArts click-hold systems. There's a reason the command "use" is absolutely verboten in interactive fiction.

I've asked this before and got no response, but what the heck: Apparently HP first appeared in D&D and did not exist in Chainmail, which had some weird system involving armor tables or something. Anybody know how it worked?

 

[dojoteef]

I wonder if a thought that 80 per cent of gamers would enjoy a turd in a shiny wrapper occured to him earlier. That would definitely explain Fable.

That just made my day. I can always count on you for the best commentary. :D

 

[vazquez595654]

Molyneux talking crazy again

Everyone needs to shut up. You need to give Molyneux another chance. Don't you see, it's because he is so innovative that a lot of his games have come up short. Anyone who doesn't see that, is just ignorant. Peter Molyneux should run for president because he is the type of progessive thinker we need in public office.

Do you see this picture? This is the picture of a real man. Have you looked in the mirror lately? How do you stack up to him?

ps Hurry up and post the Bioshock gamespot interview, so we can have something interesting to discuss.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Codexer A: It can't be done! It can't be done!
Codexer B: The old way was better!
Codexer C: Change can only be the result of idiocy and console kiddie influence!

Personally, I'm unwilling to believe that a game with a single action button automatically becomes a button mashing affair. For a group of intelligent people you sure exhibit an inability to imagine implementations outside of the old text based games you like so much or the new graphic ones you hate.

I can fairly easily imagine a situation where you press the button to kick the chair, but you need to watch your opponent and decide a good time to strike. If you just kick the chair wildly you will waste it and have fewer options. Just because you press A to kick the chair and have B, C, D, L, and R still available for other commands doesn't necessitate that you have more strategic concerns.

I don't necessarily think having a single button is better either. It's kind of scary and seems like it could be limiting. But at the same time I realize that reducing interface hurdles is a universal good. Though I understand some of you prize these interface hurdles as some sort of badge of achievement, rightfully so, you are sorely blinded by nostalgia to link them with thinking or intelligence.

 

[denizsi]

Molyneux only ever really uses one brain cell at a time.

I heard he just passed on to dual computing, two cells at a time. I'm telling ya, innovation is right behind the door, nothing's gonne be the same ever again.

 

[Sarvis]

Ah the Codex, ever fearful of new ideas.

Anyway, I can kind of see what he's getting at. Consider Kingdom Hearts 2, which I'm sure you all hate but was a pretty fun brawler if you ask me. In KH2 you had Action commands, where an icon would flash onscreen and you hit the Action button to do some special move. For instance one enemy in a large battle has a laser gun-like weapon, and if you time it right you can grab him as he's about to start firing and aim the blast at all the other enemies. It actually adds a fun, dynamic feeling to combat... which was hurt in a couple ways by how well it was implemented.

Now, as you can imagine, most of the bosses had these commands as responses to their various attacks, with multiple steps, which made for some realy cool cinematic battles. However there was one big problem with it: You often had to do the sequence up to 4 times before the boss finally died. It would have been a lot more fun/interesting if the boss died the first time you did it, even if that meant pulling it off would have been more difficult.

Honestly though the worry here is that in trying to make everything "one button" you an end up with a lot of frustrating bits. Someone mentioned standing by a chair witha guy across the room... so sure, it makes sense to kick the chair. What if I want to do something else though, like grab a nearby pool cue or hit someone coming up behind me? KH2 had a similar problem, in that the Action button was the same one used for Team Attacks and another special move and it made the decision based on context. Action superseded Team Attack, however if your timing was slightly off you ended up doing the team attack which could be trouble.

 

[Zomg]

Personally, I'm unwilling to believe that a game with a single action button automatically becomes a button mashing affair. For a group of intelligent people you sure exhibit an inability to imagine implementations outside of the old text based games you like so much or the new graphic ones you hate.

Ah the Codex, ever fearful of new ideas.

Molyneux is severely overdrawn at the enthusiasm-for-big-ideas bank, and the one button thing is a particularly vapid and unoriginal one, having already been done over, and over, and over in Gamasutra-type grad school games and in commercial casual stuff. Even the lowest astroturfer shills have to pretend to reflexively groan at Molyneux now.

As for the one-hit-and-you-die thing, just play some old vertical/horizontal shooters and see how tired of it you get with your current janging old man reflexes.

 

[Slylandro]

As for the one-hit-and-you-die thing, just play some old vertical/horizontal shooters and see how tired of it you get with your current janging old man reflexes.

You mean space SHMUPs like Raiden? At least in a lot of those kinds of games you had access to energy shields and sometimes point defense satellites and stuff.

 

[Crichton]

The one-button thing is hopeless, you need to have 1-joystick/mouse/wiimote/whatever plus movement keys at the very least (and come to think of it, you can't scroll through force powers easily without a mouse-scroll bar).

The codex outrage over "one-hit kills" is silly. Jedi Outcast and Academy allow for one hit kills and it makes the combat worthwhile, compare that to the yawn-fest of fighting orcs in G2. In JA you aren't simply trying to get "a hit" or hoping EXTRA CRITIKAL DAMAGE!!!1 randomly pops up, you're actually waiting for openings and trying to get under your opponent's guard. In G2, no matter how well you execute that attack, it's still going to take ~6 of them to kill an orc. Of course if EXTRA CRITIKAL DAMAGE never pops up, maybe you're dead anyway, unlike an actual skill-based system like JA. Which one is the "reload-fest" again?

 

[7th Circle]

(This post is looking at the action side of things as opposed to RPG gaming)

I've just watched the video and I can't help but thinking that it is a great way to wreck a good idea. I like the idea of being to able to interact with the environment like that, which is a hardly a Molyneux original idea, but using one button to do this will defeat the purpose. All it will encourage is button mashing - "I'm in some environment. A bunch of enemies want to kill me. I don't know what to do. I'll bang the action button and let the game work out how to kill them." Consequently, the idea of how to use the environment intelligently is being undermined by the interface. The beauty of such an interactive environment is that it should allow you choice re how to fight the combat - the action button approach hands this over to the cpu. Now, this may be a good way of generating cinematic sequences and I suspect that, given the Kill Bill reference, this is Molyneux's thinking but I want to play a game not watch it. Cinematic sequences, where necessary, should be left to cutscenes.

I also have great suspicion over how well such a system could be implemented. Judging by the way that ladders are implemented in a lot of games (e.g., I want to attach to the ladder to descend it, not jump over it...), I could imagine this being really frustrating as your vision of how to use objects in the scene does not correspond to that of the developers. For instance, what if instead of kicking the chair towards the person, I wanted to stand on it, sit on it, use it as a kind of shield etc. etc.

 

[obediah]

Ah the Codex, ever fearful of new ideas.

In KH2 you had Action commands, where an icon would flash onscreen and you hit the Action button to do some special move.

So did fucking Dragons Lair in 1983. OMGF teh new is coming to get me!. AND it was a absolutely horrible excuse for gameplay back then.

Gaming is just coming full circle to the brainless shit that was so popular in the 80s when video games had their big boom. What's odd is that people that remember that moms and girls and shit played pac-man and frogger and may play similiar games now are labeled "visionaries" for 'innovating" us back to the atari 2600.

 

[Kuato]

Molyneux also pondered the fact that he reckoned 80 per cent of gamers only ever really used one button at a time, suggesting that new developments in game context sensitivity would mean that a single button press could be assigned to many actions.

"the FACT that he RECKONED 80 per cent.."
Its 80% of gamers in the early 80s only ever really used one button at a time

the one button mentality partly stems from trying to simultaneously appeal to non-gamers and old stuffy exec suit types that dont play games either, I think this is common phrase from many Publishers "we trying to appeal to a wider/broader audience", They are slowly turning the game controller into something like a remote for a TV, if this contextual design is taken too far these one button games are not going to be much different than watching a movie, except even the less than blockbuster movies will still have more realistic actors(because the actors are fucking real people), better story and dialogue (in most cases will be written by professional writers) and better production value (the movie industry has hit its stride long ago in terms of production methods and schedules)

 

[Dogsoup]

Molyneux is God. I love his "Chupacabra Simulator", it's ice-cream for the people.

 

[Dogsoup]

Molyneux sports great underwear. And he owns a lagoon!

 

[Bradylama]

I guess Peter's reckoning doesn't account for the more than 20% of gamers that play FPSes. I mean, holy Christ, they could be pressing W and clicking the left mouse button at the same time! Or Shift+W to walk! Or the dreaded W+A diagonal strafing spacebar ctrl crouch jump 4 button-combo! What if they're shooting at the same time, by God? That's five buttons! We've got to streamline it!

One button can be context-sensitive, sure. Generally it's called the Use Key.

The problem here is that Molyneux doesn't get how old-hat his ideas are, not that anybody has a particular problem with one-hit kills, or context-based input.

Is it a "badge of honor" to memorize keymaps that halve playtime in point-and-click games? I guess you need it to play any RTS ever against multiple opponents. Ctrl+1 designates an army group!? WHOAH WHAT THE FUCK IS ALL THIS SHIT!?

It's hilarious that Ultima VII was brought up, as if no other game with a point-and-click interface didn't have the player characters performing context-sensitive actions.

The Kill Bill thing isn't taken that much out of context, either, because Molyneux presents it with no context. The reason Uma Thurman pwn3d the 88's was because none of them were wearing anything tougher than a dapper suit and Mardi Gras mask. Katanas were designed to slice through flesh like a hot knife through butter because iron was too rare in Japan to popularize plate or even mail armor. Hell, bamboo armor was often tough enough to block a katana strike. How well would a katana slice through level 1 kevlar? Not very well, I imagine.

It's also an idea that can't be taken seriously, because it's one that's been done to death in console games, shooters, and rpgs via criticals. Simply because the possibility of scoring a lethal blow first strike is small doesn't mean that it isn't impossible. Die rolls are supposed to account for that, because that's how variables are abstracted for RPGs.

With Todd's "Interactive Die Rolls," though, Pete may just be more innovative than we're giving him credit.

 

[Dogsoup]

I don't even know why you waste your time talking about Molyneux's ramblings. The fucker did produce Fable, for god's sake.

 

[Dogsoup]

It's like talking about the latest Brian Fargo's great vision. Coming from Wasteland to the latest Bard's Tale. What's the point? Let rotting dogs die.

 

[Direwolf]

I believe it can only be realistically be done in a tactical game, not RPG. For example Mount & Blade will benefit greatly from one-shot-kills, but in RPGs, where you have HP and stats, it will defy the purpose of the game. But then again, I love tactical games like OFP and R6, just because of that. Sure you can get killed by one bullet, but you can also kill anyone with just one bullet. It is brutal, but it is fair.

Why should the purpose of RPGs be to trade blows? Heroic fighting or fantasy doesn't define RPGs, damaging combat that keeps strategy can create much better gameplay.

Yes. I will be happy if that happens, but how about next-gen RPG fans? What would they say if the character they've been grinding to get to, let's say, level 30, just dies from one stray arrow? :D

 

[Human Shield]

Why should the purpose of RPGs be to trade blows? Heroic fighting or fantasy doesn't define RPGs, damaging combat that keeps strategy can create much better gameplay.

Yes. I will be happy if that happens, but how about next-gen RPG fans? What would they say if the character they've been grinding to get to, let's say, level 30, just dies from one stray arrow? :D

Have a skill based system. Leave them to JRPGs where characters take 5 nuclear bombs and 3 mountain size meteors falling from orbit to pass out.

 

[Claw]

The codex outrage over "one-hit kills" is silly. Jedi Outcast and Academy allow for one hit kills and it makes the combat worthwhile,

Allowing for "one-hit kills" isn't the same as implementing a "one-hit one-kill" system. The Jedi Knight games would be greatly diminished if every hit was a kill.

 

[Nog Robbin]

I could imagine this being really frustrating as your vision of how to use objects in the scene does not correspond to that of the developers. For instance, what if instead of kicking the chair towards the person, I wanted to stand on it, sit on it, use it as a kind of shield etc. etc.

Absolutey agree. Having an action button and letting the computer decide what you meant when you pressed it would potentially become seriously limiting. Suppose you wanted to kick the chair at someone who wasn't actively an enemy? Or suppose you have been playing an evil character that would kick chairs at random people, but this time you wanted to sit down? I can't see one button cutting it for big action settings really - not if the player is to have any freedom/choice in what they actually do anyway.

 

[Gambler]

That's why we need active pause in FPSes too. Or command line controls.

game$ throw chair2 npc4 -kick

Just kidding.

But it would be nice to be able to have programmable UI, just like MUD players can customize their command-line interface. Triggers, combo hotkeys, etc.

 

[Quigs]

Have you guys played Bushido Blade on the Playstation?

Exactly what I was thinking.

Ive had 10 minute battles in that game before, as well as 2 second ones.

Going "ZOMG, one hit kills??? wheres SPECIAL in all this???" is fucking pathetic.

 

[Surgey]

Didn't Bushido Blade or whatever have nearly one-hit kills? And it was apparently good; though I've never played it, I'd like to. I don't like games that rely almost exclusively on player stats, anyways.

Well, one-hit kills are not all that common even in RL. Expecially if opponents are semi-decently armored.

Indeed. Knights fighting eachother would pretty much just bash eachother til one was tired and the other went over and finished him; that or one got in a lucky strike. In any case, sword-fighting among knights was long, but anything heavy and blunt and it ended a lot quicker.

EDIT: Damn, beat me to it by a lot. I should read entire threads before answering.

I believe it can only be realistically be done in a tactical game, not RPG. For example Mount & Blade will benefit greatly from one-shot-kills, but in RPGs, where you have HP and stats, it will defy the purpose of the game. But then again, I love tactical games like OFP and R6, just because of that. Sure you can get killed by one bullet, but you can also kill anyone with just one bullet. It is brutal, but it is fair.

Why should the purpose of RPGs be to trade blows? Heroic fighting or fantasy doesn't define RPGs, damaging combat that keeps strategy can create much better gameplay.

I'm inclined to agree. I really don't like games with fights that just turn into monstrous beatfests where you're just hitting eachother til one of you drops, with very few exceptions.