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

First RTS game

[revscat]

I've had several discussions with my friends who swear up and down that since this guy was responsible for Populous that he basically invented the real time strategy game. I don't think this is true. I remember playing Utopia on the Intellivision years before I played Populous, and it was definately real time strategy.

Don't get me wrong. I repsect the hell out of Molyneux. The two titles I have played by him - Populous and Black & White - were very enjoyable. I just don't think he invented the RTS genre. Some unknown dude at Mattel did.

Re:First RTS game

[DLWormwood]

I just don't think he invented the RTS genre. Some unknown dude at Mattel did.

That would be Don Daglow, who at last reckoning would be at Stormfront Studios. He was the primary programmer of the Utopia game.

Calling it an RTS would be kind of stretch, though. While it had the same diversity of resources/buildings that games like Warcraft and so on have, there were no real military units beyond a couple of boats and terrain tiles representing rebels. There was little opportunity for tactical play, or even basic "rushing."

Re:First RTS game

[DNS-and-BIND]

Utopia was the first one. Boo-hoo you can't rush. What a bummer...game has to actually be decided by strategy! The game can't be won militarily? It must suck, then! kekekekekekeke OMG Zerg rush ^^;;

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.

Better than Black and White I hope

[Sycraft-fu]

That game was a disaster. I mean I wanted to like it, I really did, I'm a huge Populus fan and B&W sounded so cool. After about 6 hours of play I just had to accept the fact that the game sucked.

The problem was too much of this pioneering and doing your own thing, I think. Like the creatures, he decided to make them really trainable and to that effect gave them a pretty indepth AI... that sucked. Good idea, shitty execution. Same with gestures. Seems neat until your wrist is aching from having to do that fireball gesture 100 times.

Hopefully he learned something from that because Populus was just dynamite and I'd love to see more from him of that quality.

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.

Re:Game creators

[CAIMLAS]

THere are some games that have awesome creators.

Take Deus Ex (the first one) for example. Incredible story, awesome gameplay, and a complex game world all lead to a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Granted, it was a literary's game, as it had a lot of references to culture and literature, but I think that certainly added rather than subtracted from the overall gameplay experience. It had a head to it, unlike most games which are fairly base in their approach to entertainment.

Max Payne is another example of a stunning presentation and execution. Though drastically different in gameplay, it still had an awesome story and felt "finished". Nothing was out of place.

All the good films that are remembered tend to have these same elements. They get you involved with the characters and the story and help you form emotional attachments.

B&W had some good things about it, but the overall implimentation was lacking. The bugs were frustrating, the gameplay drawn out and poorly paced, and the actual goal and the method by which to execute it were pretty nebulous until you got further into it... never played Populous. I don't remember anything about it.

Re:Game creators

[CaptainPinko]

Personally I blame the gamers. When it comes down to it few of them (in my experience) have sophisticated tastes in art, film, theatre, and so on. Most of them seem to dismiss it as pretentious crap. When gamers say stuff like (quote from a conversation from yesterday) "I watch movies to turn off my brain" is it any suprise that games off as low-brow as they are? And think about even the books gamers read. Most of them are technical, or if they aren't they tend to be fairly blunt.* I find it a shame since I am doing a combined CS/Liberal Art degree.

*By blunt I mean you can't miss the point, some SciFi have have good points about technology and society or pollution or something, but its fairly in your face lacking it subtlety and nuance. Also they don't seem to be drawn to behavioural novels, more plot driven ones.

Profiling is wrong

[isa-kuruption]

Isn't a violation of someone's civil liberties to profile them? I mean, shouldn't that be stopped? Especially when it comes to Black & White... racial profiling is wrong!

Re:Black & White

[Scrameustache]

Ultimately though it came down to micro management and resource gathering.
Nothing revolutionary.

Well, I Villagers need food... really liked the game.
In fact, I found it quite Villagers need food... addictive.

Hell, I had a game tester job back in those Villagers need food... days, and I would spend my evenings playing that after a hard day's playing something else. Villagers need food...

It even did stuff like tell Villagers need food... you you'd been playing for a long time in a fun way. Once I came home straight from work and just played until the little devil Villagers need food... helper told me "Hey boss, its gettin' kinda late. Maybe you should rest a little.", that was surprising, and it made me realise it was 11:30 and I'd been playing for over 5 hours straight! : )

Villagers need food...
death...

But man, the last level was a bitch, I never actually finished it. I get the feeling the game was released unfinished. In fact, I'm sure it was death.... That's why I like console games better, at least there is an authority such as Sony or Nintendo that forces the devs and editors to actually FINISH the game before they release it. Villagers need food... On PC its free-for-all, "patch it later" mentality. Sad really.
death...
death...

No! No more games!

[Monkelectric]

B&W was a *GREAT* game. I logged about 350 hours on it and its expansion pack (it keeps track for you). The final level of B&W took me 40 hours alone.

But at the same time the game was seriously flawed -- your creature was *ALWAYS* learning, so you could never misbehave infront of it. You could spend weeks training your creature to be good, then for some reason you might HAVE to kill people in the game, your creature would see, he'd start killing people, and you couldn't stop him from doing it -- because at some point you actually had to play the game instead of baby sit your creature, and at that point your creature would wander off, kill people, and you couldn't discipline him for it.

Still a great game, finally a good use for my xbox :)

Face evolution

[Espectr0]

Hey this is cool. This is my starting evil character in the game.

After doing some non evil stuff, my character now looks like this

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!

I remember loaning Dungeon Keeper to a friend

[StressGuy]

A couple months later, they came over to my apartment for a visit. The first thing his wife did when they came is was pull the CD out of her purse, hand it to me and say, "don't ever give him this again!".

Now *there* is an endorsement for a video game.

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.