Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fable 2 Follow Up a "Significant Scientific Achievement"?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the points-for-enthusiasm dept.

In a bold statement, game developer Peter Molyneux is claiming that his new Fable 2 follow up is a "significant scientific achievement". His unbridled excitement stems from years of work on AI, simulation, and character interaction. "Fortunately for fans of Molyneux-style hyperbole, the man is back with wide-eyed, reins-off enthusiasm of his own future work. [...] In Molyneux's own words, 'I think it's such a significant scientific achievement that it will be on the cover of Wired.'"

4 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. I'll still play it by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It won't be what he's boasting but I'll play it and probably enjoy it. If they can deliver even half of what they claim, then I'll be satisfied.

    1. Re:I'll still play it by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Half? If the original Fable is any indication with regard to planned vs. included features, prepared to be unsatisfied.

  2. hahaha by deathtopaulw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who loves Peter Molyneux and his crazy claims about his upcoming works?
    It's funny every time, also it's fun to let the imagination run wild a bit... the problem is in the fans taking it to heart so strongly.

  3. Significance? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's such a significant scientific achievement that it will be on the cover of Wired. Not to be a jerk, but truly "significant scientific achievements" end up on the cover of Science Magazine or Nature Magazine, not Wired.

    Getting on the cover of Wired is more of a significant marketing achievement.

    More seriously, if this is actually a scientific advance, then it would be published in peer-reviewed journals, scrutinized by the community, and (if worthy) built upon by others. It isn't really science if you keep the secrets of your techniques locked up, and don't allow others to see/understand what you're doing. And it's certainly not a "significant achievement" if all you're doing is using the same techniques that are well-established in the field. Grandiose claims of novelty need correspondingly rigorous evidence.