Slashdot Mirror
Fable II Previews, Molyneux Opinions
Fable II is due out next month, so it's been making the rounds for previews. So has its creator, Peter Molyneux. He talks with Joystiq about the game's Co-op feature, which allows players to drop into the games of others, getting a look at how it would have played out had they made different choices. Molyneux also offered a frank interview to CVG about flaws in the game, such as poor lip-syncing and the occasional "low-spot." (This comes two weeks after he unabashedly rated it as a 9/10 game.) Joystiq also got several hours to preview the game, and Gamespy gave it a test drive recently as well.
Looks cool...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i94LVacr8RE
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
That means rent it, don't buy it. Chances are it will suck, just like the first Fable.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
"Despite the flaws, the outspoken game designer says he's "incredibly proud" of what his team at Lionhead has managed to create. "You can measure me by this game," he said."
Sounds to me like they were just pushed to release it and he's frustrated over not being able to polish what he called, "sideline issues." For me at least, this is one of the few 360 games I'll be buying any time soon.
Alright guys, you know the drill.
Step 1: Overstate features, generate massive hype
Step 2: Run out of time, cut 50% of promised features, nerf remaining 50%
Step 3: Profit because nobody learned from Black & White and Fable.
The only decent game the guy's made in his life is Dungeon Keeper 1.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
If the God of Hype himself is hesitant to give his own latest and greatest game AT LEAST a 10/10, then this must truly be his worst game production of all time...After all, 90% is most definitely the WORST self-imposed rating he has ever given one of his own games. Remember, each and every one of his previous releases has been a genre-defining, breakthrough masterpiece that changed the landscape of computer games for the next 100 years to come.
The only other possible alternative is that Sir Molyneux has gained just a shred of humility.
...impossible. The game must be god-awful.
That must be why you are here, eh?
Well, stop right there. Do you even listen to yourself? If it was "definitely entertaining" and "well worth playing", then WTF _did_ you expect from a _game_, and how does it make it "horrid"?
Now I'm not going to tell you what to like and what not to like. Had you said that it just wasn't fun, ok, I'm not going to tell you what to find fun. But if it _did_ entertain you, how the heck does it count as "horrid"?
"Horrid" is when you get get bored out of your skull, or rubs you the awfully wrong way, or generally you'd rather be in a dentist's chair instead of playing it. "Horrid" is when you can't think of any good reason why you played it in the first place, or why would anyone (of similar tastes) even look twice at the box on the shelf. "Well worth playing" and "definitely entertaining" is the bloody polar opposite of "horrid".
Here's a thought: the _only_ thing a game must do, is entertain you. If it did that, mission f-ing accomplished. It doesn't matter _how_ it did it. Maybe it was different, maybe it was easier, maybe it was more linear than a straight line, or the elder gods know in what other way it differed from your preconceived notions. It doesn't matter. What matters is if you were entertained or not. That's it.
Putting any other preconceived notions about what a game should include, above that, is mistaking means and goal. The goal is to entertain you. Anything else is just means and props. If it used different means, but reached the goal, who the heck cares? Why _do_ you care?
And yes, maybe it wasn't perfect, and maybe there would have been opportunities to be even better. Same as any other game ever released. That just makes it, at best, less than perfect, not "horrid". There is no perfection. The only threshold it must clear is that "well worth playing" line. If you don't regret the money or the time you blew on it, then it seems to me like it is well within the bullseye. Maybe it didn't hit the exact centre of the target, but it didn't fail either.
Geeze, Ì swear that some people buy so much into the group-think of what they should and what they shouldn't like, that they don't even try to use their head.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I enjoyed Black & White. Fable was okay.
Populous, Syndicate, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper-- these were all truly amazing games for their time, although if you speak with Peter Molyneux, he will say of his own games (these included) that he wished he could have made them more 'complete'.
PowerMonger is easily on my list of best games of all time, although the versions many saw (Sega Genesis port? ugh) weren't as impressive as the Amiga original. I only wish it could be remade, since the low resolution it was locked into is hard to tolerate now.
I've also spoken with Peter Molyneux directly on several occasions at E3. He's charming and charismatic, his love for games comes across strongly and it shows as he's quick to excitedly talking about them.
Whatever people feel like complaining about as far as overhype is concerned, if people like Peter Molyneux didn't do what they did, we'd have a lot less exciting games in the first place and a lot more corporate-pushed boredom.
But hey, this is the Slashdot crowd right? Always eager to roast someone.
Let's see if you can get your combat multiplier *even higher!*
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
If you look at the games, then the first ones are "simple" straightforward games that do one thing and do them well.
The second batch tries to do a lot, but then fail to actually deliver on any front instead becoming a confusing mix of micro-management and rigid gameplay.
Black&White failed because it tried to marry a creature sim with a empire building game with some RTS elements. None of them felt connected and it all just became a matter of baby sitting your civilisation and constantly having to attend to their needs with no AI to take care of the most mundane task. The creature part wasn't as rich as promised and the micro-manangement needs of your tribe soon wore your down and stopped you from exploring wandering until you just told you tribe to go screw it self.
Fable again, what was it? A hack&slash, an RPG, a empire-builder? You had lots of elements, but what were they together. There was a story, a path of good and evil but what did it all do. The story itself, was far to linear, good was just looking out for yourself and evil just being mean.
All that supposed complexity came at a price of the most simplistic combat this side of a gameboy, all weapons hit the same, wielded the same so it was just a matter of picking the one with the higest stats. The AI was moronic, none of the battles challenging.
The movies tried to marry a movie creation program with a management game. The movie creation element was okay and people still create movies with them but the management element was buggy as hell (after a certain point, right in the middle of the depression, NOBODY would be looking for a job) and again, way to mired in micro-management forcing you to handhold your employees through every stage rather then being allowed to just get on with it. People who play the game have modded it to remove almost all management elements from the 'game' and just use it is a movie-maker.
That is really this guys problem, he needs to focus on ONE aspect of his game and then do that well. Not try to make the mother of all games, combining every feature. If Molynoux ran a F1 team, F1 cars would have winches because winches are useful. It would however be a winch with a 1 meter cable. The prize would be that the car could only drive in 1st gear. But hey, it is a F1 car with a winch, nobody has ever done that before.
No indeed, nobody has ever done games the way Molyneux has done them. Perhaps that is a clue.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yahtzee already did the first one before he got his gig...
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jYQLR7dE5k4
I can't wait to see if his new review is simply a rehash of this or if he just plays it again and adds 2 to every mention of fable.
How can you call something horrid and well worth playing in the same paragraph? Are you trying to please everyone? Self-esteem not strong enough to handle it when people disagree with you? You bipolar freak. CHOOSE NOW! NOW!
Shouldn't these "other game" post just stop? W.o.W. Dot needs to focus on W.o.W..
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
My beef wasn't with Fable's gameplay or Peter Molyneux's promises... my beef was with the utter failure of game journalists to deal objectively with Fable.
Fable was not a horrible game (although entirely average and forgettable, imo), but the issue was how Fable previews and reviews called it the best thing since sliced bread.
To make it worse, once the backlash hit, you had the EXACT same journalists who wrote sensational 10/10 reviews for Fable lamenting about how much Molyneux had duped everyone.
Fable never would have been a controversy had it not been for paid-off reviewers and the game "journalism" hype machine.