Slashdot Mirror
NYT Profiles Creator of Black & White and Fable
Amy's Robot writes "The NYT has a profile of Peter Molyneux, creator of 'Populous,' 'Black & White,' and the upcoming 'Fable.' In Fable, the moral decisions you make affect the character's appearance, the outcome of the game, and so on. You get the impression that Molyneux's unconventional approach to game design infuses each of his creations with something more than your average game. Fable will be released for X-Box on September 14."
Now, I havent seen this game, I havent played his earlier creations, though I have seen people play Populous (and tried to get my hands on a copy) and Black and White.
A bit in to the NYT article, it is said that the actions define the characters. It definitely does interest, but fail in the face of scrutiny since it is still too thin, too amateurish which leads me to believe it was a design choice to leave it less complex. For e.g., the characters tend to look their part, defined by the direction they take when presented with choices throughout the game. That is, one looks godlike, when said character chooses to be pious and honest, where as the same character look like a devil (with horns) when he consistently choose the wrong path. Why would Peter Molyneux decide to make a mockery of who the character is, is what stopping this game from achieving its full potential. Why cant the character look the same, act the same and still be good/evil? We certainly do not see people or beings among us with horns or wings?
The picturisation of these characters and giving them a blessed or cursed look depending on their choices kind of trivializes or cheapens the whole experience in my opinion. I read a while ago that in the fairy tales and tales of kings long ago lived and fallen, one could clearly draw a line between those who were good and those who were evil. Yet, if we attempt to do the same now, that line will fall across the souls of each of us as that line will not seek to divide one from the other, rather it will show how that line which differentiates the good from evil is now resting upon our own soul.
Rapid Nirvana
Mr. Molyneux's game concepts are always amazing, topnotch, and sadly, overambitious. Thats how I've always felt. B&W was a disappointment, because for all the hype and all the "open-ended" promises, the game played pretty much the same for everyone, and had a ton of bugs too. I put it down after getting about 3/4 of the way through and just never picked it up--just didn't live up.
Now that I hear that a lot of the promises of Fable didn't make it into the final game, I wonder if the same thing will happen -- huge concept, big promises, but weak on the execution.
This isn't to say the games are bad, they're just horribly disappointing to me. A game that sounds like 10/10 ends up being more like an 8 or a 7/10, but given the expectations, tends to "feel" more like a 5/10.
Moo.
I hope Fable isn't as overhyped as Black&White was... reading the previews, you had the impression that it would revolution gaming. Playing it (well, the 5 short levels, where your creature, the main part of the game, was taken away on 2 of em) was really disappointing. Few quests, no replay value AT ALL, AI not that revolutionnary (look! it can dance and root out trees if you show him too! and he can... hum... that's about it), big bug on the unpatched version (you couldn't finish the game), etc...
That said, I am waiting with impatience B&W2 and Fable! Overhyped? I hope not!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
I don't have celebrity game creators in very high esteem. In almost 30 years, they have failed to make gaming a recognized art form, which cinema had achieved at the same age by the 1930s. They leave no legacy, since video games mostly disappear with the platform they were running on. And game designers, instead of concentrating on the entertainment value of their games, like to hype BS "artificial intelligence", "real virtual worlds that interract like the real real world", and armchair philosopher's mumbo jumbo.
you still have any trust in before-the-publishing reviews?(_previews_)
if you trusted those then pirates of the caribbean would have been a good buy and maybe even daikatana.
with a game such as this(and from this particular guy) you would do yourself a favor and see when the unaffected reviews hit the net after it's available from the stores(because you can't trust these previews on if it's buggy or seriously flawed or not, all you can trust them is the basic premise and story backgroud).
with some of the linked so called reviews containing gems such as **"Well, it looks like this drawn-out story is finally coming to an end. The game is slated for actual release in Summer '04, which means that it's finally ripe enough to warrant a closer inspection. Having been afforded such an opportunity at the recent GDC convention, let me go on record saying that it was well worth the wait: Fable might well be the coolest game the master craftsman has dreamt up yet."** you can bet your ass that they're sugar coated(if not with anything else then with the "can't say anything bad because i didn't have the final version" complex of reporters doing it for living, sadly that makes such reporters totally worthless).
so you know it'll be released "summer 04" so you create a "review"? remember that there's a strategy guide for halflife2 that has been out for almost a year too. a half competent journalist can create seemingly accurate reviews from just ten mins of gameplay, or just from screenshots!(wouldn't be the first either)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Today that hackneyed convention lives on in countless genre pieces, comic books, and indeed much of the output of Hollywood and TV, even if modern people have come to see that the real face of evil may look as shiny, plump and friendly as the face of, say, an Enron CEO or a leader who lies to his nation. In this way, our imaginative fictions too often fail us by repackaging our tribal prejudices as villains. Typically in modern life it is the devil who looks and sounds normal--a paragon of the banality of evil--that one must fear, not some dark-skinned and different-looking Other!
You should really realize this on the 3rd level. No creature, and you just sit around casting a spell, again, and again, and some more, and some more... It was boring as all hell. Any game where you start reading a book for entertainment while playing it has an issue or two.
On top of this, and the bugs, the game had no real challenge to it in the end. It's an exercise in slow, painful attrition, nothing more.
Really, if it was marketed as some virtual pet simulator I might have given it some credit, but as a strategy game it sucked.
Populous was excellent, Theme Hospital & Theme Park were also very good. However, creatures was bugged to hell and at times unplayable.
When The Bitmap Brothers can do Speedball 2, Team 17 can do Alien Breed, ID can do Doom & Quake, Sid Meier can do Civilisation and Alpha Centauri, and Chris Sawyer can do Transport Tycoon, Peter Molyneux's output actually drops quite far down that table of "great games".
Yes, the guy has some nice ideas but perhaps needs to give his over-inflated ego a rest and actually get on with his game design a little more.
Perhaps if he sent more time debugging his output (all of Molyneux's games are renowned for wierd and wonderful bugs) rather than hyping himself, he'd get a bit more respect for what he does.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Your character being affected by your actions is nothing revolutionary. Dungeons and Dragons has had a system of alignment(good/evil and anywhere inbetween) since the early days. Invariably this is where all todays good/evil ideas in games(video or otherwise) come from. I think the fact that it affects your physical appearance is rather nonsensical, and trivializes the concept of good/evil. Then again I'm an RPG fanboy and love my D&D so I might be biased.