Molyneux Apology Explained

Thanks to the BBC for a follow-up to an earlier story. Following Peter Molyneux's apology to the Fable community last week, the BBC spoke with the game designer about his decision. "[I] owed a duty to fans to explain why some features did not make it into the finished product."

Comments

Re:I still think it's cool that he apologized

[tc]

How different was it really? It's a very much "on rails" RPG (in terms of where you are allowed to walk within the maps), that has obnoxious loading times, tiny maps, and is generally too short. The quest structure, with the retries and 'boasts' also serves to always remind you that you're playing a game, not immersed in a world.

The only innovation was the level of customization and character development. But even that wasn't a revolutionary new idea, it was just dialing up an existing concept.

Granted, the production values were high, and the overall level of polish was good. It's a competent enough RPG, but let's not pretend that it was anything really special.

Frankly, there are several better RPGs out there, both on Xbox and other platforms. Judging by Gamerankings, others agree with me (Fable is currently around 86%, whereas other RPGs have scored far higher).

Re:I still think it's cool that he apologized

[Pxtl]

Honestly, I think Molyneux games are overrated. He starts out with good concepts, but then ruins it with creepingfeaturitis that's not even relevant to the gameplay (Black and White was terrible for this). Compare StarTopia, an obviously Molyneux-inspired game. Tons of variety, excellent gameplay, a wide variety of buildings. Comes out being a far better-feeling strategy than Molyneux games, even though it has the same premises (all your people are totally autonomous, and you are just an administrator).

Take the old "growing trees" example: that's a big PITA to implement, and yet he wanted this to be a major feature. And its nothing - its a minor, unimportant feature of the background.

Re:Missing features aren't the biggest problems

[snuf23]

I believe the explanation for Black and White's suckage was that they were working on the creature control aspect for so long that they forgot they needed an actual game. So when deadline time reared its ugly head they just threw in some Populous 3 style gameplay. The twist being that now you had to take care of your villagers while your ape throws poop at them.
The creature was kind of neat but utterly out of place with the rather conventional game play. I mean he was mostly a detriment not a help. Hell, most of the time my ape would just be pissed because I was trying to help the stupid villagers fornicate. Damn those villagers were stupid.