Molyneux: Fable II Too Complicated For 60% of the Masses

[Captain Rufus]

And thats the fucking problem. If you need to sell over 5 MILLION copies, you might want to rethink your business plan.

Don't we already have Shenmue as videogaming's "Heaven's Gate" or "Cleopatra" or "Waterworld"?

There is probably a lot more money in smaller, cheaper games targeted at a hungrier market.

They could probably take half the budget for Fable 3, and make 3-4 games aimed at a smaller market and maybe sell just as many copies, or at least make a higher profit.

Maybe not as MUCH of a profit, but a profit nonetheless, and with far less risk overall.

Of course the market has become massive hit driven thanks to modern capitalism not being about MAKING A PROFIT, but making increasing levels of profit every year otherwise OH FUCK THE STOCK WILL DROP.

So instead of the long term levels of R&D and working towards consistent profits for the long time, we get the same old shit aimed at getting more and more people (who MIGHT NOT EVEN EXIST) to buy the same old shit.

And naturally the fastest way to higher stock prices is to fire people if the same old shit somehow doesn't sell up to their expectations.

Somehow EA and Activision made plenty of cash in the 80s, but now they need more cash by making shittier and shittier games and to larger and larger audiences, all the while either buying out competitors to gut, or fucking over the people who made you money.

 

[Cassidy]

Stock market speculation is one of the worst things about capitalism: News at 11.

 

[racofer]

Does Molyneux understands Fable 2?

 

[Pliskin]

Don't be so negative. When the vidya game bubble bursts, maybe designers will go back to making some decent RPG's for the "core gamers".

 

[Cassidy]

Does Molyneux understands Fable 2?

How can someone not understand his own creation? Alzheimer's?

 

[spacemoose]

the people want minigames with their movies who is molyneux to deny them

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Does Molyneux understands Fable 2?

How can someone not understand his own creation? Alzheimer's?

He surely didn't understand what Fable 2 was when he was promoting his dream game in place of it. Or he intentionally lies. I frankly can't tell.

 

[Sceptic]

Possibly a bit of both, but I suspect more of the latter. Every time I hear him talk I find it hard to remember he's the same guy whose genius was behind Populous and Dungeon Keeper.

 

[mondblut]

For the first time in who knows how long he is actually correct. Even Fagle is too complicated for the masses.

 

[random_encounter]

I'm also not being smug when I say I don't know how he could possibly streamline it even more. PC auto attacks for you and you just navigate your character to the next cutscene?

Part of me doesn't want to believe that the "core demographic" can't be that casual a gamer to require this much help in a game. Fable II is as easy as it can come to an action RPG that you could throw at someone already intimidated by titles we consider "hardcore".

When Molyneux doesn't even want to call Fable III an RPG, I get the feeling that he's trying to play the accessibility card again and draw in a larger audience with whatever he's cooking up in the same way that Bioware began talking about Modern Warfare 2 with ME2.

Possibly a bit of both, but I suspect more of the latter. Every time I hear him talk I find it hard to remember he's the same guy whose genius was behind Populous and Dungeon Keeper.

I miss Syndicate.

 

[jiduthie]

this thread is full of fail.

I don't understand why most of you would look at that picture and go "ah hell, moar decline." It clearly states that the intention is to move more than "5m units." If this is the target, then clearly most games are much too complicated. Look at record sales. Anything that sells greater than 5 million copies is most likely drivel.

Appealing to such a broad base is the jackpot. Game companies are going to try it, because the pay off is there. If reaching that many people requires dumbing down then so be it. It is to the game communities benefit the more people who can be brought into the fold. Those kids weened on "dumbed-down" games today are the hardcore tomorrow.

The real question is why the supply of games for hardcore rpg enthusiasts has declined in recent years. Is it piracy? Is it a bad relationship between publisher's and developers? Or is it simply that with improving graphics, that the costs of art are too high and pool of gamers willing to accept shoddy art too small?

Iron tower studio wants to answer these questions. My guess is that considering the life that rpgcodex, nma et al have left in them, that the market is there if only someone could get it right. But whatever the case, shitting on developers who attempt to make games with broad appeal is the old shit. If this forum has anything worthwhile left to say it's answering whether or not gamers like us can support a niche market in spite of whatever the mainstream industry is doing.

 

[Droog White Smile]

^ Fallout 3 is a very complex game and yet it sold millions. Your theory is bullshit, bro.

 

[Azrael the cat]

My 2nd biggest reason for going easy on Molyneux (the biggest one being that he was a genuine great before going senile, and respect must be paid - just like one respects The Stones for their 60s work and Pink Floyd for their 70s work - syndicate, dungeon keeper 1 and 2, big kudos) is that he has always been upfront about catering to the dumbed-down console crowd who would normally be playing platformers rather than an rpg. Seriously, when all PC dialogue is communicated via the kind of body gestures that a 5yr old finds amusing (I wonder whether any poor nerd youngster actually tried farting in an attempt to pick up) you can't really take it as a serious attempt to make a crpg.

But if you're manufacturing games for idiots, you can't really complain about them being idiots. What's more bothersome, however, is I suspect that he wasn't really ripping on the idiot-factor. I've got a couple of friends who do computer graphical design and animation for a fulltime living. Basically they do almost all of the ads that come out of our city, wherever there is a need to cgi anything or animate anything in the ad or tv show or film. Thing is, guys coming from that viewpoint LOVE games, but have TERRIBLE taste, because all they want to see is the kind of stuff they work on. Hence they utterly LOVE Mass Effect, despite having grown up on Deus Ex, FO and PS:T, specifically because of the pseudo-cinematic elements. I go 'crap, loss of interactivity, shitty bastardised dialogue mechanics'. They go 'wow!, they've managed to make it like an interactive movie! Animation is getting priority over dialogue trees - AWESOME!!!'

I think that Molyneux may well come from a similar bias. He aims to simplify the crpg genre as much as possible and 'revolutionise it' by removing what he sees as holy grails. When other gamers happen to LIKE those holy grails in their rpgs, he sees it as them not understanding what he is trying to achieve. It isn't a matter of stupidity per se - lot's of very intelligent and talented folk get sucked into that hole - but it's a kind of tunnel vision that hits when you approach a project with a huge enthusiasm for a particular part of the project, or a particular goal, until you judge the game entirely by that particular goal and are blind to how it screws the rest of the game mechanics.

 

[Pliskin]

Re: this thread is full of fail.

Appealing to such a broad base is the jackpot. Game companies are going to try it, because the pay off is there. If reaching that many people requires dumbing down then so be it. It is to the game communities benefit the more people who can be brought into the fold. Those kids weened on "dumbed-down" games today are the hardcore tomorrow.

No, they aren't. Odds are the kids weened on dumbed-down consoletard shit of today will either a) be the same dumbed-down consoletard market 20 years from now, or b) quit playing dumbed-down consoletard shit as they mature into actual productive members of society.

It's not like a gateway drug that leads to hardcore addiction. Quite the opposite. The "hardcore gamer" demographic (and I'm not even sure what the fuck that's supposed to be anymore) is born with a genetic itch --- not indoctrinated through over-exposure to shitty console games.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

NEWS FLASH!


New design philosophy revealed at GDC: Less RPG elements, more molesting women that live in your console.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62357



Edit: Oh shit, watched some of the video. They just pulled out the 'it's still an RPG...in that you're playing the ROLE of the character' card. Wow.


And those people who aren't interested in the RPG elements that still cling to Fable's frame...couldn't they just play another game?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I don't get why some poeple on kotaku seem to be shocked at the "must sell >5m" thing. Do people think companies make games for lulz or something?

 

[jiduthie]

blah

droog is funny.

Azrael makes a good contribution to the discussion, but I strenuously object to calling people idiots. I've been using a computer since before I can remember and was using the internet before it was the world wide web and I've been guilty of not being able to comprehend how a person could not grasp the use of such things in an intuitive manner. However, the truth is that most games assume a level of competence that is unreasonable.

The amount of people buying games today and the amount of people who owned computers 15 years ago suggests that the skill set that most of us take for granted isn't present in most of the target audience of current game developers. Even if one wants to take into account the game console base of 15 years ago, its hard to argue that the skills required for super mario are even close to enough for the most basic rpg that the readership here would enjoy.

Anyone of us that has tried to teach our mother how to use email must be aware of the fact that the lack of computer competence does not make one an idiot.

Molyneux is a bit of a loon, but his belief that games must be simplified in order to maximize profits is not crazy.

In response to Pliskin, I'll only say that when I was 13 or so, I remember being mesmerized by the awesome graphics and story of Final Fantasy 8 after it came out. I also remember that around the same time I was amazed by how my father so easily sorted out the complex problems of games like panzer general and x-com. I tried to play them, making almost no headway and generally making a fool of myself. Today, replaying FF8 is only gratifying for its nostalgic value and I yearn for more games as complicated as capitalism II. It's certainly not true that one necessarily leads to the other, but without basic competence in gaming I'd never have discovered the more specific and complex genre of games I now enjoy. It's anecdotal, but I hope the logic of it is enough to discredit Pliskin's line of argument.

 

[jiduthie]

and...

Regardless, even if one accepts that the game industry has moved beyond all reason and defied the efficiency that all markets the world over have demonstrated, in that they fail to address the large and overwhelming population of non-"idiot" gamers that the crowd here believes so large in supply, why is it so?

Why has the game industry failed to cater to your needs?

 

[Mortmal]

(If anything WoW is a FINE example of how to get lots of people to play a relatively complex game. Its accessible with lower end but still nice graphics to get multiple machines playing it, it doesn't brutalize the players the way Everquest and early Ultima Online did, and the first 10-20 levels or so is effectively a long tutorial.)

Wrong.. so very wrong, the large majority of wow players dont go further than the very first levels , i remmber it to be as low as 8., you catn call that playing a relatively complex game, it gets complex when you get to the higher level requires teamship and a minimun of social skills, i am not even speaking of raids wich caters to a extreme minority.

UO and everquest brutalize players ? well i guess its right old school players love to be kicked in the balls, i certainly did.Still today theres no mmorpg matching the level of interaction of UO, well theres EVE but its not the same style of game.

As for molyneux he used to be a genius , or the guys working at bullfrog were, dont give him all the credit for syndicate, populous , powermonger, magic carpet, dungeon keeper.. eh thats quite the list. But fable 2 does quite well his job as interactive faery tale children book. You cant blame them to cater to mainstream, they had financial problem had to fire some staff,and were bought by microsoft.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Re: blah

However, the truth is that most games assume a level of competence that is unreasonable.

Fable 2 has a glowing trail for a quest compass (turned on by default), you can't die (you can, but you can respawn instead of reloading by paying a xp penalty), and melee/magic/shooting each have a corresponding button (you can get on without leveling these. I didn't jump my strenght because I didn't want my character to become muscular. Enemies took longer to die but it was doable).

If that's an unreasonable demand of competence, I wonder how such a player would still be alive, having to breath and eat and drink and sleep and...

I mean, even Barney's hide and seek had pitfalls you can fall in, and no quest compass

 

[jiduthie]

Clockwork knight, you're intentionally missing the larger point but for the sake of argument:

The notion of a "quest compass" actually encapsulates perfectly the point I'm trying to get across. You and I understand this as an unnecessary addition to an rpg because we understand intuitively how to move around in and interact with a gameworld. However, this isn't something that someone you pull off the street could be expected to understand.

The fact that dying in the game doesn't refer you to a game over screen doesn't alleviate the frustration of "failing" that someone unfamiliar with the conventions of the rpg might experience.

Much the same could be said about your description of "melee/magic/shooting" as discrete buttons on the controller. Again, watching my mother, who is a 30 year veteran of the nursing profession and no failure at the art of life, trying to play along with my brother and I at a hockey game should be enough to show exactly how foreign these concepts are to the non-gamer populace. She loves hockey and understands quite a bit how the concept of it plays out in real life, but the actions of the game mapped out to a controller just isn't something she can learn at 50 years of age. This inability is not a function of her idiocy or inability to "breath and eat and drink and sleep" but rather her complete unfamiliarity with the norms of our hobby. Molyneux wanting to reach people like her is not detrimental to his bottom line.

Which yet again brings me to my question, and larger point, if what you all want is so easy for everyone then why are there no game companies attempting to feed that market?

Edit: In fact, what I find most amazing about this forum is the inability for most of the members to conceive of the skills they possess when talking about the poor quality of modern games. Indie music hipsters revel in the fact that their tastes are developed to a point that mainstream music sounds pedantic to them. RPG players have much the same problem but they insist that everyone's ability to understand games is much higher than it actually is simply because their own tastes are further developed. Its elitism combined with utter disbelief that anyone might not appreciate games to the extent they do.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Clockwork knight, you're intentionally missing the larger point but for the sake of argument:

Nah, I'm not being douchy on purpose.

The notion of a "quest compass" actually encapsulates perfectly the point I'm trying to get across. You and I understand this as an unnecessary addition to an rpg because we understand intuitively how to move around in and interact with a gameworld. However, this isn't something that someone you pull off the street could be expected to understand.

Yes, but if the compass is present (in the form of a glowing trail, even), anyone that can hold the controller should be able to follow it. I mean, you just have to lean the stick on its direction. You don't have to pay attention to the dialogues or landscape to see where you need to go. You just have to...follow the glowing trail.

The game tries to be accessible so a quest compass is needed. That's ok. But if you can't follow the shiny trail (it's not even an actual compass, which could conceivably confuse people not used to using one, there's an actual trail linking your character to the objective), how did you turn on the console at all?

Oops, better call my 2 year old to help ;(

The fact that dying in the game doesn't refer you to a game over screen doesn't alleviate the frustration of "failing" that someone unfamiliar with the conventions of the rpg might experience.

Any game (computer or real life) has the possibility of failing, not only rpgs, so this argument doesn't hold. And people normally learn to deal with failing at a game when they enter kindergarten and meet other kids, seriously.

Is there even a game, rpg or not, where you can't fail? Even Where's Waldo may end up in a frustrated person not finding Waldo.

Hardcore game. Someone. Will. Lose.

Much the same could be said about your description of "melee/magic/shooting" as discrete buttons on the controller. Again, watching my mother, who is a 30 year veteran of the nursing profession and no failure at the art of life, trying to play along with my brother and I at a hockey game should be enough to show exactly how foreign these concepts are to the non-gamer populace. She loves hockey and understands quite a bit how the concept of it plays out in real life, but the actions of the game mapped out to a controller just isn't something she can learn at 50 years of age. This inability is not a function of her idiocy or inability to "breath and eat and drink and sleep" but rather her complete unfamiliarity with the norms of our hobby. Molyneux wanting to reach people like her is not detrimental to his bottom line.

The majority of the playerbase aren't middle aged people who are justified in being resistant to learning new concepts (and even then, the game is as friendly as possible, so whoever can't follow it is better off playing a turn based game like checkers or Dragon Quest). And someone who has the specific "must sell >5m units" isn't going to bother with this smaller (if untapped) fraction.

Which yet again brings me to my question, and larger point, if what you all want is so easy for everyone then why are there no game companies attempting to feed that market?

What is it I want? I didn't ask for anything, just mentioned that the game is as accessible as it can get and I see no way to streamline it even more than having an auto-win button. Also, companies are known to make horrible decisions.

Edit: In fact, what I find most amazing about this forum is the inability for most of the members to conceive of the skills they possess when talking about the poor quality of modern games. Indie music hipsters revel in the fact that their tastes are developed to a point that mainstream music sounds pedantic to them. RPG players have much the same problem but they insist that everyone's ability to understand games is much higher than it actually is simply because their own tastes are further developed. Its elitism combined with utter disbelief that anyone might not appreciate games to the extent they do.

It's elitism to be shocked that people do not want to read page-long Planescape dialogues, or fight battles with 1-to-100 odds of survival. That's alright, the normal player has neither the skill nor the interest in that, and that's ok.

It's not elitism to be shocked that people can't follow the glowing, sparkly trail. Anyone can follow the shiny if told to, no matter the age or gaming skill.


tl;dr - My point isn't that Fable is trying to be dumbed down banalshitboring and should improve; I know that it's trying to be accessible to non rpg players, and that's fair enough. In fact, that's a great idea.

However, the second game is about as easy as it can get without going onto "press X to win" Barney territory. Can't die, can't get lost, no complex combos or tactics in combat...what else can be done if people can't get by with that?

I think the game even remembers you to use potions if your health goes down enough (in Fable 1 at least, the guildmaster was constantly going "watch out, better drink a potion before you die") on your character's mind.

PS: See, during reading of this post, your eyes naturally drifted to the orange, glowing words.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Not sure if Molyneux is advocating to dumb down games on his own volition, or if he has to say that to please Microsoft.

Either way, I get the feeling the guy doesn't listen to his inner designer instincts anymore, but mere marketing research and gaming "trends".

 

[DraQ]

One of the only two not insultingly retarded things said by OB M'aiq was:

People always enjoy a good fable. M'aiq has yet to find one, though. Perhaps one day.

The other was:

M'aiq longs for a Colovian Fur Helm. Practical, yet stylish. M'aiq is very sad he does not have one.

What I found most puzzling is this:
What does he mean by "core gamer"?

Gamer with only core functionality present - breathing, swallowing, circulatory regulation, defecation.

 

[Droog White Smile]

Re: blah

droog is funny.

Your mom was funny the last night.

Fallout 3 is way more complex than the Codex's beloved Arcanum. Stop the hypocrisy, start the honesty.

FFS