Interview Peter Molyneux's lack of talent didn't stop him

[J1M]

Theme Park, Syndicate, Powermonger, Dungeon Keeper. All innovative and brilliant games that he worled on. That's a lot of statistical anomalies. Go look at his track record again.

Did he really have a hand in developing them? Or are they sufficiently far in the past that we can't really know what he actually did for them? I also would question the greatness of your list there given I have only heard of one game on that list before and I'm one of the most 'hardcore' gamers I know.

Sure you are kiddo. Nevermind.

Apparently you are camping this thread pretty hard. I didn't get a chance to do this immediate edit to my post before you responded so I moved it here:

Contrast this with the results since he became a game celebrity. Occam's razor says others are more responsible for what you like about those old games than he is.

 

[Trash]

Look chump, you call yourself a 'hardcore' gamer. That in itself is rather stupid, but calling yourself that and not knowing these classic games is almost retarded. Therefore I really don't see the point in trying any real discussion with you.

I allready stated why I think his recent offerings have been rather full of fail (with the noteable exception of fable). The industry has changed from a guy (or a few guys) making a game in an attic into a multi billion bussiness. He made his name when he made games by himself or with a small team. The only thing I debated was DU being his charming self and calling this guy a talentless hack. Now go and be a harcore gamer and try some of these classics.

 

[Jasede]

Oh and if you try Syndicate and don't like it, don't come back.

 

[Texas Red]

"with the noteable exception of fable"

The shallow and simple game that is Fable could have been expected from any of these developers doing ARPGs, not from a proclaimed creative genius. It's like he hasn't ever played an RPG or even heard of P&P and decided to start from the beginning.

 

[Trash]

He tried something new. That alone was cool. In the end they made a rather enjoyable action game with some light rpg elements and an incredible fun character system. It wasn't brilliant, but it sure as hell was an enjoyable game.

Still, it sure as hell had nothing on a game like Syndicate.

 

[J1M]

Look chump, you call yourself a 'hardcore' gamer. That in itself is rather stupid, but calling yourself that and not knowing these classic games is almost retarded. Therefore I really don't see the point in trying any real discussion with you.

I allready stated why I think his recent offerings have been rather full of fail (with the noteable exception of fable). The industry has changed from a guy (or a few guys) making a game in an attic into a multi billion bussiness. He made his name when he made games by himself or with a small team. The only thing I debated was DU being his charming self and calling this guy a talentless hack. Now go and be a harcore gamer and try some of these classics.

I will give at least Syndicate a chance since I see there is a second vote for it.

Your attempts at sniping my post fail pretty hard.

The point you seem to be missing is that if they were as great as Fallout or XCOM or Populous I probably would have heard of them before. You'll note I used the term in hardcore quotes to indicate I know it's kindof a dumb term, but it is a decent shorthand given our medium of communication.

Your comment on how now that Peter has more money, power, and autonomy than before makes it harder for him to realize his game design visions makes no sense. He is at the point where if he wants to he can just channel his game design ideas into a product without having to do any of the grunt work. We should be seeing something as good as Pikmin from him instead of Black & White. Both are games from designers in similar industry positions.

PS: What exactly was new in Fable?

 

[Trash]

You write a lot of text with little substance. You're also pretty quick to draw silly conclusions. Don't try so hard and go learn a bit about classic games.

 

[Jasede]

It's -really- hard to call yourself a "gamer" and not have heard of Dungeon Keeper or Theme Park or Syndicate. I can understand it if you're like 14 or so, but not else. Well, at least you know the word "gamer" is silly anyway.

 

[J1M]

It's -really- hard to call yourself a "gamer" and not have heard of Dungeon Keeper or Theme Park or Syndicate. I can understand it if you're like 14 or so, but not else. Well, at least you know the word "gamer" is silly anyway.

As I mentioned way back I had only heard of one on his list. It happened to be Dungeon Keeper. I guess I pass your litmus test. Woo.

 

[J1M]

You write a lot of text with little substance. You're also pretty quick to draw silly conclusions. Don't try so hard and go learn a bit about classic games.

I see, you prefer the short post with no substance. I bet you like this one then.

 

[Jasede]

There's a lot of pent-up tension between you two. I will write an erotic story for girls about it.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Molyneux made some nifty stuff back in the day, but all of his recent stuff was pretty awful. Fable possibly taking the cake for being the least innovative game hyped as innovative. Sure, it was charming and funny, had some decent writing, and okay pacing....but there were so many awful design flaws that tore the game apart.

 

[J1M]

There's a lot of pent-up tension between you two. I will write an erotic story for girls about it.

Make one of us a vampire outcast and the other a werewolf outcast. Also, have a supporting character of an unpopular but pretty girl. I hear that shit sold well enough for Twilight. This homoerotic angle would probably be even more popular.

 

[Trash]

You write a lot of text with little substance. You're also pretty quick to draw silly conclusions. Don't try so hard and go learn a bit about classic games.

I see, you prefer the short post with no substance. I bet you like this one then.

Look, when someone calls himself a harcore gamer but doesn't know shit about classic games it kinda takes away credibility. When someone just assumes that if a game is good he should know about it, when he clearly doesn't know shit about classic games, it takes away even more credibility. When he then misses the entire point I made in my previous post and draws a stupid conclusion, what's left to do?

Anyway, go look at some of these classics. Even today they can be a lot of fun. Oh, and what was new in Fable was in how your character truly became the epicentre of the game. Everything was build around the idea that you shaped the world around you and how it reacted to you. Sure, it wasn't done in a brilliant way, but it was rather original in it's premisis.

 

[denizsi]

Theme Park, Syndicate, Powermonger, Dungeon Keeper.

I also would question the greatness of your list there given I have only heard of one game on that list before and I'm one of the most 'hardcore' gamers I know.

LOL. He must have been having amnesia attacks; that would explain certain black holes in his gaming history. Or perhaps the time it takes him to figure out how to play and finish any particular game is long enough to miss several releases.

 

[Mareus]

I am hardcore gamer!

 

[Xi]

Occam's razor says others are more responsible for what you like about those old games than he is.

Really? This is new to me.

 

[Brother None]

Occam's razor says others are more responsible for what you like about those old games than he is.

Really? This is new to me.

What, the application of Occam's Razor. It's a workable one.

Peter Molyneux' games at Bullfrog rocked.
Peter Molyneux' games since suck.

2 possibilities:
1. The greatness of Bullfrog games was never attributable to Molyneux, the value good is attributed to Bullfrog.
2. The greatness of Bullfrog games is attributable to Molyneux, the value good is attributed to Molyneux except where Molyneux = after Bullfrog.

The second option is less simple, hence Occam's Razor dictates the first is most likely true.

 

[Volourn]

"As far as I am concerned, Bullfrog made great games, not Peter Molyneux."

Sounds like how I feel about Tim Cain, and Troika. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Interplay + Cain = Awesome Game Known as FO.

Cain - Interplay = Good to Middlish games with absolutely shit design issues that lowers the marks a great deal.

R00fles!


et


OH SNAP!

 

[Mor]

Occam's razor says others are more responsible for what you like about those old games than he is.

Really? This is new to me.

What, the application of Occam's Razor. It's a workable one.

Peter Molyneux' games at Bullfrog rocked.
Peter Molyneux' games since suck.

2 possibilities:
1. The greatness of Bullfrog games was never attributable to Molyneux, the value good is attributed to Bullfrog.
2. The greatness of Bullfrog games is attributable to Molyneux, the value good is attributed to Molyneux except where Molyneux = after Bullfrog.

The second option is less simple, hence Occam's Razor dictates the first is most likely true.

Nice argument, but easy to reverse. You're forgetting that Bullfrog also went downhill after the parting.

 

[J1M]

You write a lot of text with little substance. You're also pretty quick to draw silly conclusions. Don't try so hard and go learn a bit about classic games.

I see, you prefer the short post with no substance. I bet you like this one then.

Look, when someone calls himself a harcore gamer but doesn't know shit about classic games it kinda takes away credibility. When someone just assumes that if a game is good he should know about it, when he clearly doesn't know shit about classic games, it takes away even more credibility. When he then misses the entire point I made in my previous post and draws a stupid conclusion, what's left to do?

Anyway, go look at some of these classics. Even today they can be a lot of fun. Oh, and what was new in Fable was in how your character truly became the epicentre of the game. Everything was build around the idea that you shaped the world around you and how it reacted to you. Sure, it wasn't done in a brilliant way, but it was rather original in it's premisis.

Fortunately, I don't accept your premise that 4 games Petey made constitute all of the important classic games.

At least I'm willing to admit I might have missed something instead of regurgitating a press conference Pete held about Fable. I also would suggest the idea that a static world where nothing important happens except by your hand is exactly the opposite of what would be innovative in the ARPG genre. Pointing out a long-standing genre convention and erroneously claiming it to be innovative does not a great game make. If the world progressed and was alive with changes if you sat and did nothing that might be "innovative".

 

[J1M]

Occam's razor says others are more responsible for what you like about those old games than he is.

Really? This is new to me.

What, the application of Occam's Razor. It's a workable one.

Peter Molyneux' games at Bullfrog rocked.
Peter Molyneux' games since suck.

2 possibilities:
1. The greatness of Bullfrog games was never attributable to Molyneux, the value good is attributed to Bullfrog.
2. The greatness of Bullfrog games is attributable to Molyneux, the value good is attributed to Molyneux except where Molyneux = after Bullfrog.

The second option is less simple, hence Occam's Razor dictates the first is most likely true.

Nice argument, but easy to reverse. You're forgetting that Bullfrog also went downhill after the parting.

That's not a reversal. It's an application of the same thing to Bullfrog. The conclusion from doing that would be the teaming of them resulted in better games, not that Pete is responsible.

Furthermore, I would say that Occam's razor would indicate the reason Bullfrog went downhill after Peter and them parted ways likely has more to do with being purchased by EA than some convoluted relationship where Peter was instrumental to their success, but unable to make a good game afterwards.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Oh, and what was new in Fable was in how your character truly became the epicentre of the game. Everything was build around the idea that you shaped the world around you and how it reacted to you. Sure, it wasn't done in a brilliant way, but it was rather original in it's premisis.

No.....no it wasn't. That's every CRPG's ultimate goal, to make your character the focus of the story and make it so the world reacts to your actions, and Fable sure as hell did next to nothing new to get there (and didn't get very far either). People in towns reacting to your good/evil meter? Nothing new. This time they just had cute little emotes or running away actions instead of 5 million Flaming Fist battlemages spawning to kill you for picking a lock, "YOU N'WAH!", "STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!", some token "I heard rumors you did something heroic. Bravo!" comments, or shopkeepers lowering/raising their prices. It really did most of the same world reactivity as far as basic CRPGs go, and the same "chosen one" style of being the protagonist as most basic CRPGs.

What it did do that was unique was a few little things. The mix of learn-by-doing and experience points was an interesting one (though I swear I've seen a similar system elsewhere and Fable's broke down quickly), the idea of boasts when doing quests was nifty (nothing like beating a bunch of bandits down with just some union jack pants and a sword for extra loot), the speech system was new....but dumb, and it did a decent job of integrating action-y elements in without feeling like a cheap action game (something Jade Empire failed miserably at). But that was it as far as interesting innovation goes, and a lot of the core mechanics were pretty shoddy.

It wasn't awful, but I'd put it barely above mediocrity like Oblivion.

 

[RK47]

Well minus the hype, Fable deserve a solid 8 for a pleasant game and setting. However, with the hype I'm more inclined to expect more and suffer more disappointment as the result. It'd been better if Molly shut up that would lead to less perceived 'flaw'.

Over promising and under delivering is one of those things I kinda hate to experience as a customer.

 

[sportforredneck]

There's a lot of pent-up tension between you two. I will write an erotic story for girls about it.

Frightening.

---
Also by the time Fable came out, I forgot all of the promises Molyneux had made, and it was a solid game. There wasn't any glaring flaws to me that made it so terrible, besides shortness and a few other things. But it was entertaining, not an "ultimate RPG" but fun.