Molyneux's Unfocused Innovation
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dungeons is coming out soon...
This'll be a proper RTS/Management Dungeon Keeper-like, if the promo videos are anything to go by. Effectively DKIII! None of this Overlord E-RPG nonsense.
This'll be a proper RTS/Management Dungeon Keeper-like, if the promo videos are anything to go by. Effectively DKIII! None of this Overlord E-RPG nonsense.
Pitching the Fable games to a creative directer in twenty-five words or less? It'd probably start out something like this...
"So, basically, I'm trying to create the greatest role playing game of all time... Basically."
"So, basically, I'm trying to create the greatest role playing game of all time... Basically."
This is the sentiment of all the gamers lucky enough to play games during the "golden age" (roughly 1988-2003). It's why those gamers are so bitchy about the loss of expansion packs, dedicated servers, more original IP, the soul of Lucas Arts, and small free-bee items between expansions while bristling at the idea of paying for DLC. The kids willingly shell out the cash for it today.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
I think what people are most pissed about was the combat going from the various, scaled and interesting boss battles from Fable TLC to "not another fucking goon and/or golem" in Fable 2 which had less deep fluff instead of fun variation in core gameplay. The end lacked power and/or reward because the rest of the game: is a constant breeze, was padded with fluff, lacked bosses that only YOU could conquer (for whatever reason) and the story's tone of only you have the power/haste was contradicted by the previous flaws.thisberichard said:
If Fable 2's intended tone of serious epic shit needs to be done actually had the serious epic shit needed to be done like in Fable TLC for just everything until the end: getting to the regular guy would have felt like an accomplishment, the tone of only you can do it would have been felt, there would not be a epic boss fight lost feeling, the story would have been relevant and what you see as "fresh and different" would have been appreciated for working.
-
Personally it also didn't help that in my first play-through in Fable 2 I was unfortunate enough to do the fun old absolute evil route. When I finished the game it was done by accidentally shooting the main villain once, I thought my experimenting with the interactivity was fine because I should be able to do what he was doing for shits, giggles and evil, instead of just back stabbing him after I watch all my friends die. BUT NOOOOOOO, apparently I was now pals with everyone ever and everything I did before was cool because I accidentally killed the bad guy thus according to the universe I could not kill the idiotic 3 myself and am a real great guy.
Apparently the epitome of all that is good can be the ultimate evil restricted by the universe's arbitrary laws. THAT is what ruined the entire game as well as the ending for me.
I'm not sure what PM does (now) counts as innovation. At least not examples like maps. A good UI doesn't break immersion, but he's not the first nor the last person to try and strip the UI down or remove it. Centralised hubs, similarly, are not new. The biggest difference here is that F3's seems to suck more than the average.
I mean, I like a streamlined UI. Some parts of the HUD are really useless or only need to be there sometimes. And some people try and remove the whole damn thing and annoy me in the process. It's not really innovative or creative and hasn't been for years.
Molyneux talks a big game, promises the moon, and falls short. It's like he talks innovation, then gives us "The map room" (Whatever that hub is called). He frequently doesn't seem to "get" where his ideas fall short, like the whole "clothes change" thing.
I mean, I like a streamlined UI. Some parts of the HUD are really useless or only need to be there sometimes. And some people try and remove the whole damn thing and annoy me in the process. It's not really innovative or creative and hasn't been for years.
Molyneux talks a big game, promises the moon, and falls short. It's like he talks innovation, then gives us "The map room" (Whatever that hub is called). He frequently doesn't seem to "get" where his ideas fall short, like the whole "clothes change" thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_gradeWolfram01 said:
He's talking about social classes... I think.
Nintendo may consistently reuse their properties, but their sequels always feel fresh and creative.Spot1990 said:
Out of Mario's 4 3d console titles, only 2 were remotely similar if you repaint all the characters. Everybody knows Ocarina of Time. Majora's used a 3 day clock coupled with collectible magical masks. Windwaker had a unique aesthetic and the game took place on a vast ocean which you had to sail across with the help of a magical instrument and a talking sailboat. Twilight Princess had Link turning into a wolf and clearing the realm of a shadowy mist. Just recently we've seen a controversial 2d-3d,FPS hybrid narrative-driven Metroid game, Kirby without his inhale ability and turned into yarn, and DK....well....there's coop....and blowing.
I won't even mention the first console use of a touch screen, camera, or motion controls. Not to mention the balance board or the fricken vitality sensor.
Fable would be fine if they wouldn't try to reinvent warm water every time, keep good ideas and improve upon those.
As if you go look at a car, well let's innovate something, hmm... throw out the engine and make it a peddle car?, NO, engines are an awesome idea so keep them and have they have of room for changes and improvements.
So don't go taking away maps, just shuffle it around a little, maybe put a fog of war on it that clears as you explore and your dog leads you in the general direction of your quest when asked to do so.
Also don't shove elements like sex and relationships down peoples throats, keep that shit optional, those who want it can pursue it and the rest of us wont be annoyed on every turn.
And how the hell did anyone think those Fable 2 job minigames are a good idea, you put an actual tedious job into a game?!
Does every company now employ one looney that designs minigames, and everyone just goes along so they wont freak out and cut their wrists?
As if you go look at a car, well let's innovate something, hmm... throw out the engine and make it a peddle car?, NO, engines are an awesome idea so keep them and have they have of room for changes and improvements.
So don't go taking away maps, just shuffle it around a little, maybe put a fog of war on it that clears as you explore and your dog leads you in the general direction of your quest when asked to do so.
Also don't shove elements like sex and relationships down peoples throats, keep that shit optional, those who want it can pursue it and the rest of us wont be annoyed on every turn.
And how the hell did anyone think those Fable 2 job minigames are a good idea, you put an actual tedious job into a game?!
Does every company now employ one looney that designs minigames, and everyone just goes along so they wont freak out and cut their wrists?
It's true the days of "names" seemed to have disappeared but I guarantee they'll come back soon. Games aren't movies but their production is pretty similar, so I imagine their history will be as well. Movies started out as more technical displays, entertaining but only on the most basic level, they didn't even have sound. Games had a similar start with Pong and BASIC games. Both were largely produced by enthusiasts who had the time, patience and income to do it. Not because they were brilliant talents but because they were keen.
Then you start get an "industry" small studios making small productions. Which leads to break-out stars. Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, in games Sid Meier's, Peter Molyneux. Not only are they making something new they making in more entertaining than others who have jumped on the band wagon.
It's not long before people aren't impressed by this stuff anymore. It's not really improving, and the same stuff keeps coming out. The crash. It happened with the movies (mostly because of the depression they say), and games in the 80s. But then there's an innovation in technology. Sound for films, and consoles for games. Suddenly this new entertainment is more affordable and much better. Technology gets bbetter and companies start bragging about it. Technicolour, Panaramascope, xbox and PS2. But this costs money, and enthusiasts can't afford these innovations. Now there are some big companies forming. The rise of the studios like MGM start for movies. Games have Sony and Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft buys in.
That's when you get the age of the blockbuster, the golden age of Hollywood. All the big movies are super expensive productions. There are "names" but they are more commodities of the studio than individuals. Games starts going down the same route of CoD, Halo, Mario. Big franchises, made with big bucks to make even bigger bucks.
But then something happens. They become "formula". People are still interested and they still make money. But then some guy makes a film for a pittance and it gets as much money at the box office as the big film. Then he does it again? People see his work as "art". The studios see an oppurtunity to get the same money for less cost and risk. You start to get "named" talent. Not just the actors but the directors. The person with creative control whose job it is to over see everything. Lots of people can manage but this guy somehow does more than that.
In movies this gave rise to films from 50-70s. In wasn't how much was spent it was who is the star and who is the director. I think we're at that point in games. Tim Schafer is a good example. He's not always been successful but he is one of these people making low-budget entertainment that pulls in big revenue. The team that mad angry birds, and the guys that made Limbo. We already have known development studios but I think we'll get more and more "names". Cliffy B, Randy Pitchford, you could include Peter Molyneux but he's gone a bit Orson Wells.
There will still be the blockbusters big and small just as there are in movies, your transformers and Saws, or your CoDs and Halos. But I think more and more we'll get specific concept games by specific developers. It won't matter to us what genre the game is, it'll be who the creative head was.
That's my theory anyway...
Then you start get an "industry" small studios making small productions. Which leads to break-out stars. Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, in games Sid Meier's, Peter Molyneux. Not only are they making something new they making in more entertaining than others who have jumped on the band wagon.
It's not long before people aren't impressed by this stuff anymore. It's not really improving, and the same stuff keeps coming out. The crash. It happened with the movies (mostly because of the depression they say), and games in the 80s. But then there's an innovation in technology. Sound for films, and consoles for games. Suddenly this new entertainment is more affordable and much better. Technology gets bbetter and companies start bragging about it. Technicolour, Panaramascope, xbox and PS2. But this costs money, and enthusiasts can't afford these innovations. Now there are some big companies forming. The rise of the studios like MGM start for movies. Games have Sony and Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft buys in.
That's when you get the age of the blockbuster, the golden age of Hollywood. All the big movies are super expensive productions. There are "names" but they are more commodities of the studio than individuals. Games starts going down the same route of CoD, Halo, Mario. Big franchises, made with big bucks to make even bigger bucks.
But then something happens. They become "formula". People are still interested and they still make money. But then some guy makes a film for a pittance and it gets as much money at the box office as the big film. Then he does it again? People see his work as "art". The studios see an oppurtunity to get the same money for less cost and risk. You start to get "named" talent. Not just the actors but the directors. The person with creative control whose job it is to over see everything. Lots of people can manage but this guy somehow does more than that.
In movies this gave rise to films from 50-70s. In wasn't how much was spent it was who is the star and who is the director. I think we're at that point in games. Tim Schafer is a good example. He's not always been successful but he is one of these people making low-budget entertainment that pulls in big revenue. The team that mad angry birds, and the guys that made Limbo. We already have known development studios but I think we'll get more and more "names". Cliffy B, Randy Pitchford, you could include Peter Molyneux but he's gone a bit Orson Wells.
There will still be the blockbusters big and small just as there are in movies, your transformers and Saws, or your CoDs and Halos. But I think more and more we'll get specific concept games by specific developers. It won't matter to us what genre the game is, it'll be who the creative head was.
That's my theory anyway...
whats wrong with taking my imps and brutally tortured and converted fairies on a dinner date? i need to get to know them before i asked them to die in my name. anyway i like peter as much as yahtzee and i did love fable more than COD or medal of honor im not kidding when i say that i completed both single player campains in two hours, and yea i know its all about the multiplayer and socialising but heres the thing i play games to avoid socialising if i want to socialise i'll go to my local pub or to a nightclub or to skate parks, or comic/scifi cons not sit on my arse with a mic in my ear with god nows how many morons screaming in my ear like they think they're suddenly the stars in saving private ryan.
That sucks... I'd love a new Dungeon Keeper game ._.Sovvolf said:
Also according to Wikipedia, EA have Starbreeze Studios [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbreeze_Studios] working on a new Syndicate game.
I was not a fan of Black & White...despite, or perhaps because of, over a year of biting my nails waiting for it. Ultimately, I think it did in fact try to do too much - I felt like I couldn't connect or communicate with my Creature, and I had trouble bringing myself to try because there were always people begging clearly for my assistance.
That as it may be, when Petey there was Bullfrog, it put out some truly amazing things. To this very day, I'd balk at being asked to write a terrain system that looked as good, and was as mutable, as Magic Carpet..and that ran on my 486.
Meanwhile, while I missed out on Fable 1 on account of a foolish high-school-kid anti-Microsoft bias, and haven't gotten around to Fable 3 yet, but I found Fable 2 to be scarcely worth playing in any regard.
Anyways, back on topic: I'm not sure that the world is as bereft of creativity as Yahtzee makes it out to be. We still have our true originality - our Minecrafts, Dwarf Fortresses, Limbos, Braids, Portals, Bioshocks, Osmoses (Osmosees? Osmos's?), Assassin's Creeds, Left 4 Deads, Heavy Rains, and our Mount & Blades. We still have fresh takes or new combinations of existing ideas, like Borderlands (much as I hated it), Mass Effect, Arkham Asylum, The Witcher, Castle Crashers, inFamous. I'm not convinced that there are fewer quality and creative games out there, but I do agree that there are more games of poor quality every day, making the average go down.
This is what we have game reviewers for, right Yahtzee! :-D
That as it may be, when Petey there was Bullfrog, it put out some truly amazing things. To this very day, I'd balk at being asked to write a terrain system that looked as good, and was as mutable, as Magic Carpet..and that ran on my 486.
Meanwhile, while I missed out on Fable 1 on account of a foolish high-school-kid anti-Microsoft bias, and haven't gotten around to Fable 3 yet, but I found Fable 2 to be scarcely worth playing in any regard.
Anyways, back on topic: I'm not sure that the world is as bereft of creativity as Yahtzee makes it out to be. We still have our true originality - our Minecrafts, Dwarf Fortresses, Limbos, Braids, Portals, Bioshocks, Osmoses (Osmosees? Osmos's?), Assassin's Creeds, Left 4 Deads, Heavy Rains, and our Mount & Blades. We still have fresh takes or new combinations of existing ideas, like Borderlands (much as I hated it), Mass Effect, Arkham Asylum, The Witcher, Castle Crashers, inFamous. I'm not convinced that there are fewer quality and creative games out there, but I do agree that there are more games of poor quality every day, making the average go down.
This is what we have game reviewers for, right Yahtzee! :-D
Nah. I know someone who works for him and apparently he'd come in some days and go "I just had a great idea for the game" and usually this great idea would mean recoding weeks worth of work. That's not really a bad thing I suppose, unless you work for him. Having a visionary design a game is certainly better than having whoever designed Medal of Honour games do it, but he needs switching off and on again. The best thing he could do right now is forget about the Fable name, forget about the games altogether and work on a completely new title. Freshen things up a bit. But of course, he'll never do that.Calibanbutcher said:
I disagree with the idea that his ideas don't work just because they aren't new. The biggest problem is that when you actually have a moment to inspect these features, they're all incredibly shallow. Marry an NPC? Sounds great until you do it and realize you're marrying someone who can say about a dozen sentences and looks a lot like approximately half the female population. Buying property would be awesome if only the whole thing wasn't so simplistic and one-dimensional, not to mention the fact that working the real-estate market is an awfully boring alternative to dragon-slaying. It's not that these things aren't good ideas, they just fall short when you realize how little work was put into them. It would be incredible if you could marry an NPC and then actually be able to interact with them the way real couples do, if not a bit creepy.
What I'm saying is that non of Pete's good-on-paper idea's fail because they're novelties, they fail because they are either implemented in the most shallow way possible (marriage) or because they don't belong in an action/adventure title in the first place (real-estate)
What I'm saying is that non of Pete's good-on-paper idea's fail because they're novelties, they fail because they are either implemented in the most shallow way possible (marriage) or because they don't belong in an action/adventure title in the first place (real-estate)