Peter Molyneux: Fable III Was a Trainwreck. I'll Never Make my Perfect Game
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, I didn't knew about the hype behind the first Fable, I only knew it was a good game and I wasn't dissapointed.
But I definitely heard all the hype he himself created about the third Fable. Admiting his mistakes raises a lot of respect on my part.
But I definitely heard all the hype he himself created about the third Fable. Admiting his mistakes raises a lot of respect on my part.
Fable 3 wasn't perfect but I still loved it. I really hope he continues to dream and try to create that perfect game in his mind so even if he falls short and fails to create that perfect game we will still have a great game like fable 3.
Yes, I believe he is. Which is probably for the best I suppose. Fable III was the weakest of the bunch and with the progression of time over the course of the games I'm not sure how far he could really go before Albion hits modern day. Though I suppose that could be interesting too. In any case, I enjoyed the Fable games despite their range of quality.Zachary Amaranth said:
I sort of feel sorry for him because im much the same way. I imagine something that feels great, but i do not have the skills to write/paint/create it in reality and when i try i end up creating some turd. The important part is that he finally admits it, and thats the first step.
Peter Molyneux has plenty of flaws, and while his overstatements are among them, I just don't think he's a very good game designer.
Let's take the first Fable into consideration. The whole aesthetic, from the literal art style to the whole storybook mock-up approach, was very charming. The game was nothing if not inviting. But the mechanics, while tight, are almost as shallow as mechanics can be. For instance, combat revolved around a very limited amount of functions, which would be fine if those functions had diverse applications -- but they didn't, and winning combat was a case of finding the square hole for the square peg. And I can't see why Molyneux couldn't see this from the design stage itself, not just the execution.
If one intends to make a game to last the ages, isn't the absolute first thing to perfect going to be the mechanics? A work of digital media can be excellent without mechanics or with few mechanics or even with shallow mechanics, depending on the work (such as The Walking Dead). But a truly excellent game, in the most traditional sense of the word, must have mechanics that are centre-stage in contributing towards the user's experience. Fable's mechanics were indifferent towards itself, so much that another set of real-time RPG interaction mechanics could have been put in and nothing would have been lost.
This is what Peter Molyneux doesn't get, but what defines Shigeru Miyamoto as among the absolute finest game designers of our time. Molyneux has his big ideas and seems to consider them to be perfect upon conception, rather than potentially excellent upon development. Miyamoto, on the other hand, has an excellent understanding of how to iterate on broad concepts to create an excellent end user experience. Their objectives are different -- Molyneux seems to want to express himself to his consumers and for them to thank him for it; Miyamoto wants to create the best experience possible for the consumer base, with his own expressive qualities filling in the gaps left behind.
Let's take the first Fable into consideration. The whole aesthetic, from the literal art style to the whole storybook mock-up approach, was very charming. The game was nothing if not inviting. But the mechanics, while tight, are almost as shallow as mechanics can be. For instance, combat revolved around a very limited amount of functions, which would be fine if those functions had diverse applications -- but they didn't, and winning combat was a case of finding the square hole for the square peg. And I can't see why Molyneux couldn't see this from the design stage itself, not just the execution.
If one intends to make a game to last the ages, isn't the absolute first thing to perfect going to be the mechanics? A work of digital media can be excellent without mechanics or with few mechanics or even with shallow mechanics, depending on the work (such as The Walking Dead). But a truly excellent game, in the most traditional sense of the word, must have mechanics that are centre-stage in contributing towards the user's experience. Fable's mechanics were indifferent towards itself, so much that another set of real-time RPG interaction mechanics could have been put in and nothing would have been lost.
This is what Peter Molyneux doesn't get, but what defines Shigeru Miyamoto as among the absolute finest game designers of our time. Molyneux has his big ideas and seems to consider them to be perfect upon conception, rather than potentially excellent upon development. Miyamoto, on the other hand, has an excellent understanding of how to iterate on broad concepts to create an excellent end user experience. Their objectives are different -- Molyneux seems to want to express himself to his consumers and for them to thank him for it; Miyamoto wants to create the best experience possible for the consumer base, with his own expressive qualities filling in the gaps left behind.
Well no actually, people have an aversion against Molyneux for presenting us with a bowl of crusty porridge, but claiming it's mana from heaven. It tends to annoy people when you have someone talk like they're some brilliant artist, when really they have no talent at all. See also David Cage.Sgt. Sykes said:
But then that's likely why he could never shut up about how fantastic his games were going to be; If they were actually good, the footage would've spoken for itself, and he wouldn't have had to sell us on it with his passionate speeches.
Just seems that Peter Molyneux concentrates more on the minor parts of the game than the game itself. Remember he kept going on about the dog, changing weapons, butler and the hand holding etc and those things were not that great. Between F2 and F3 all he did was add pointless stuff and ignored all the issues people didnt like about F2.
Hopefully a new non-molly Fable will be made and be 100% better, first to get rid of is the stupid farting rubbish and just get the core gameplay perfect before adding stuff.
Hopefully a new non-molly Fable will be made and be 100% better, first to get rid of is the stupid farting rubbish and just get the core gameplay perfect before adding stuff.
You know it's a pretty depressing sign of the times when a guy has to apologize for talking passionately about something he had a hand in making. I like Molyneux, he actually seems to enjoy what he does, unlike the by-the-numbers, faceless, soulless, NDA laden nobodies that get rolled out to pass us a few dribbles of sterile info about "Foreigner Shooter 56"
That's the trouble with wanting something done, and having to count on others to make it for you.
I thought fable 3 was the best of the series, honestly. And the twist half-ending was brilliant writing, blurring lines between what is good and what is evil. The brother was being evil, but only for good reasons. Then, you can choose to keep your promises and be a good guy, but ultimately screw the people over.
of course, I kept all my promises AND kept everyone alive by having a ridiculous amount of money from being a land baron. I even kept my prices all fair. Not low, but always neutral.
of course, I kept all my promises AND kept everyone alive by having a ridiculous amount of money from being a land baron. I even kept my prices all fair. Not low, but always neutral.