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."

Comments

Does this trivialize ?

[cOdEgUru]

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.

Re:Does this trivialize ?

[Gooba42]

I think you miss the point of both the game and the fairytales. They were caricatures of real life, not necessarily depictions of actual events.

The fact that this game doesn't choose to depict a perfectly realistic world but instead chooses to draw upon a fairytale like mythos deepens the fictional world it depicts. It isn't supposed to be confused with real life.

As the title "Fable" suggests, the contrasts of good and bad, light and dark are all going to be exaggerated and if it's written well maybe it'll actually have a "moral" at the end to be drawn from this world of sharper contrast than our own.

High Concept, Low Gameplay

[cephyn]

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.

Re:High Concept, Low Gameplay

[GeorgeMcBay]

Black & White was a disappointment, yeah, but as a key player in the creation of many great games like Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet and Dungeon Keeper, I think I can overlook one overhyped flop.

And from what I've seen Fable looks really good. I'll surely give it at least a rent.

Game creators

[El Cabri]

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.

Molyneux's gimmick - old, old stuff

[Zhe Mappel]

Yes, Molyneux's gimmick is a throwback to one of the oldest storytelling conventions: characters are condemned to wear their moral selves on their sleeves.

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!

Re:Will Fable actually be good?

[Derekloffin]

No, I didn't like B & W because the game sucked pure and simple.

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.