Molyneux On Future Of Game Design 46
Thanks to GameSpy for its interview with Lionhead boss and Populous creator Peter Molyneux, part of a talk held at the DICE Conference in Las Vegas. While admitting that "this industry tends to bumble through innovation", Molyneux noted freeform games could be less interesting than they looked, lamenting that "he always dreamed about making games that give people total freedom, but what he discovered is that complete freedom in a game world is boring after about ten minutes." He concluded by suggesting alternatives to the 'sandbox' approach, arguing: "People like to have challenges, goals, and something to struggle toward."
Rewards (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget rewards. Back in the day the reward for beating a game was twofold.
1) you got to see the end of the game
2) you got to tell all your friends you beat the game, hahahaha
Nowadays #2 is jax3d because everyone beats every game that can be beaten. That's why multiplayer games like CS are so popular. Since there is no challenge anymore in playing against the computer people play against each other.
Whenever I look for quality in game design I always look to Zelda games. You can go anywhere and do stuff, so its freeform. But you have a predetermined quest, to get all the triforce pieces and beat ganon. Don't make a linear game in which the places you go and the things you do are in a predetermined order, that hasn't been fun since Mario 1 and 2. You have to at least do things like Mario 3 did or like Mega Man did if not what Zelda did. But be sure to give the player a goal, make sure that they know what the goal is and make sure that you give the player enough information in game so that they will be able to figure out what to do.
Make it hard, but don't make it stupid and arbitrary. FF:CC had this problem. The way to get lots of items and things and cast different spells requires the players to pretty much randomly figure stuff out. There were no puzzles to solve like in a Zelda game. You don't make a series of logical thougts and arrive at a conclusion that gives you the hidden shiny. You pretty much either find it randomly, or you read a FAQ. That is piss poor game design right there. I just can't understand. Everyone recognizes certain games as the best, but so few people learn from those games and apply that learning in designing new games. They just make the same design mistakes over and over. Hopefully indy developers will save the day.
Re:Rewards (Score:4, Insightful)
That is funny, because I would consider Zelda linear. Sure in the last Zelda game, you could go to any island (well after you got the ship and sail) and explore different Island, but you had to do things in a specific order to beat the game (you couldn't beat the 2nd dungon with out beating the first one) The only games that I have played that are nonlinear are FPS and MMORPG. The game is going to have to be somewhat linear if you want the game developer to provided a good coherent story.
Zelda and Metroid non-linearity (Score:4, Informative)
The first Zelda had a "recommended" order of dungeon completion, offered to the played in the form of those level numbers, 1-9, but overall the player could enter any dungeon at any time, and even complete some of them. Player equipment got in the way of some of that, but in places, if you were good enough, you could penetrate deep enough into a dungeon to get an item early. People have discovered the Magic Key in Level 8 in the first quest is like that, which could be considered a cheat since it makes finding any other keys for the rest of the quest moot.
The second game, however was very linear. There are sequence breaks for it, but they don't seem as sponsored by the designers themselves as in the first Zelda.
Once in the dark world in Link to the Past, the player became able to play and complete some levels out of order. And Ocarina of Time does have a nod to that type of non-linearity -- although the game points you to Death Mountain after completing the Forest Temple, you can actually complete the Water Temple first. (I believe -- going from memory here, it's been years since I've played it.) And of course all the Zelda games (except maybe II) have had little things like extra equipment and heart pieces scattered around to find outside the "main" sequence.
The problem with non-linearity in Zelda games is striking that mix between letting the player do whatever he wants, and hand-holding players who get confused about what to do next. I greatly prefer the former approach, and loved just getting lost in Wind Waker exploring the ocean, but I've coached someone through the whole of that game, who couldn't handle the non-linearity of it. Judging from the sales of hint books, there's a lot of people like that.
I think, in the future, we may end up with more approaches like in the new Metroid, which *appears* to have a strict exploration structure but actually turns out to be EXTREMELY non-linear, almost like the original game. People have written over at GameFAQs that you only really need nine, of the hundred items in the game, to win, that you can beat Ridley before Kraid, that you can skip the Speed Booster, Screw Attack, High-Jump Boots, and so on. It turns out that much of this sequence breaking seems implicitly included by the designers, with the routes that break the "intended" order with less equipment being more difficult to find, and requiring "un-supported," yet still present, moves such as the bomb jump and the wall-kick. It still seems to be impossible to make the player utterly trapped anywhere, and there are special ending pictures for winning with 15% of the items in the game or less.
Re:Zelda and Metroid non-linearity (Score:3, Interesting)
Moreover, there's no particular reason at all to complete the Shadow Temple before the Spirit Temple. Indeed, the first time I played the game, I only realized after the spirit temple that I'd done them in the "wrong" order and had to go "back" to find one because of the order on the medallion chart.
"And of course all the Zelda games (except maybe II) have had little thin
Re:Zelda and Metroid non-linearity (Score:2)
And I had forgotten, for a moment at least, about Majora's Mask, which is linear in a certain way, but utterly non-linear in another.
Re:Rewards (Score:1)
2) you got to tell all your friends you beat the game, hahahaha
Back in the day there was no end of the game. Just high scores.
Case in Point: GTA (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose Morrowind is like that, too, only with way too much walking/running for my tastes (even with the Boots of Blinding Speed).
Re:Case in Point: GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Case in Point: GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Case in Point: GTA (Score:3, Informative)
Get the spells called "mark" and "recall" from the Temple in Balmora, or from various other spots throughout the land.
In your main "home" or wherever it is that the person you are running the errand or task for is, use the mark spell. It marks that spot as your designated spot to teleport back to. And then once you go and get the item they wanted, or you finish the task, just hit "recall" and you go back to it.
I also use this feature as a safety net. If I ever was swamped wit
Re:Broken curve (Score:2)
Most of all because the plot isn't exactly engaging. I recently picked up the GOTY edition and was somewhat disappointed. Knights of the Old Republic has less freedom, but I get sucked into the game more because the plot and characters are more interesting. Morrowind's story is just dry sub-Tolkien stuff.
Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:5, Insightful)
But yeah really really open games are impossible at the moment. Even if you limit the world it seems an impossible task.
Lets examine his own game Black & White (widely reviewed in reviews as an excellent games wich is prove enough game reviews are not worth the paper they are printed on) an "open" game. Except it isn't is it. You were constantly tehtered to this rather crap "city" and its braindead inhabitants. So instead of exploring and teaching your creature you were constanstly trying to manage the population. To much food and overcrowding, too little and they starve and impossible to get it right. My solution, grow plenty and have my creature eat the population. Actually I tried to be nice at first but one of my houses was build wrong with the door apparently under the ground so lots of people were trapped inside. Didn't notice this until I destroyed it since and they all came out burning and I went from good to evil in the time it took my ape to get out the marshmellows.
To many of the current games still require idiotic micro management and restrictions because the developers seem unable to make a functioning AI or world model.
Exactly how many times have you started a mission to save the entire world from thousands of heavily armed bad guys with 1 pistol and 2 clips of ammo? Worst offender recently was Silent Storm. Crack team of commandos at the height of WW2 and you are even told by the guy in the armoury "we got the finest of the british army at your disposal". What you get? 1 submachine gun, 1 rifle a few clips of ammo oh and a bandage. Wheee!
As call of duty and medal of honor have shown some of the best moments in a fps aren't you with 1 pistol against 100 enemies but you and 100 allies against 100 enemies. Now that is the kinda stuff I want to see. Not me the single superman but playing a character in world wich behaves real without all the inconvenient bits of actually being in a war.
Of course this is a lot harder. Give you a single pistol and you will be to busy ducking and running to notice that the dozen or so enemies are not actually a match they just got insane firepower and health points.
So for the next Black & White (still in production?). Get rid of the insane micro management. Make it easier to control the creature (how often did you punish or reward for the wrong thing because the interface lagged?). Make crap like mouse gestures optional or at least talk to people who know how they work (opera does them great for me). Here is a tip. If you draw a cirle too fast it looks like a square to a computer. (to few point of reference)
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Early design: You are a God, you have a World, you have a Creature and you have a Populace. Go ahead, do what you like.
Molyneux: But we need challenges otherwise it's boring!
Not-So-Early design: You are a God, you have a World, you have a Creature and you have a Populace. Go ahead, beat all the small challenges we supply you with.
Molyneux: But we need goals otherwise it's boring!
Late design: You are a God, you have a World, you have a Creature, you have a Populace and you have a lot of small Challenges. Go ahead, find your way to all the other worlds we have supplied!
Molyneux: But we need something to struggle towards otherwise it's boring!
Published game: You are a God, you have a World, you have a Creature, you have a Populace, you have a lot of small Challenges, and you have other worlds to discover. Go ahead, beat the Other God that is competing with you!
Players: What's the Creature good for?
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:1, Troll)
And you forget to tell that doing conference that either talks about high level gaming concepts or that presents the high level gaming concepts that suposedly will be in his next game (but actually won't) is part of his PR machine.
Face it, it's not only black and white, all his late games are just plain boring and missed their goal. He is living on Populous fame.
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah. Well, that and Theme Park. Well, that, Theme Park and Theme Hospital. And let's not forget the wonderfully fun Dungeon Keeper. And obviously, as we all know it, Black & White was popular. So I guess that one too.
Unless you could name some of his other recent games that have 'missed their goal'?
And yeah reviewers raved about B&W, and while I liked it, I can see why most didn't. Like the first poster in this story pointed out, everyone wants these exceedingly easy games. I really didn't think that B&W was any harder than Theme Hospital or Populous was back when first picked it up. (It's been a long time, to be fair.)
Not to mention the whole decision tree/perceptron deal it had surrounding it. That was why it got such big press, unfortunately.
And so far as his doing talks being his PR machine? Quite possibly. Does that make what his says garbage, though? For that matter, maybe it's possible that with Fable and The Movies nearing completion he's got more free time?
Personally, the biggest error was not supporting a mod community early on in B&W. But, that's just me.
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? I thought the biggest error was releasing the game when it was full of bugs it could walk across the floor on its own. The biggest challenge in finishing the game was getting to the end without it crashing.
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the incredible zooming options where you start from planet level and zoom in until you see the apple the peasant is holding in his hand fullscreen and there's a worm in it?
What about the fact that the peasants were supposed to have their own life and you kinda try to influence them? They in fact
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:1)
You feel burned, and I can completely understand that. I guess I've just always done my 'bestest' to avoid hype, and I didn't really pay any attention to B&W before it's release. But after enjoying his games before, I have decided to 'bite the apple' in the case of Fable. Here's hoping.
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:2)
If you liked dk and b&w gameplay, then this is not the right discussion for us to argue: I was really talking about the difference between his speeches and what finally ends up in his games.
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:2)
Maybe they should have started creating the game earlier in development
I don't know, somehow I can't help making connections between Mozilla and B&W. Huge, ambitious, aiming to include everything and do it all well. Only Moz
Re:Pah, just because he can't make them. (Score:2)
Peter Molyneux (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Peter Molyneux (Score:1)
This has to be the best part of the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
"He says he watched a 15-year old playtester chat up a woman in town who happened to be the mayor's daughter. He brought her gifts and flowers, talked to her all the time, started hugging and kissing her... and eventually they married and moved in together. Molyneux says he was delighted that a player was exploring this part of the game. Then the playtester talked to the Mayor and asked him to follow him. He took the mayor out to the woods, got him behind a tree ... and killed him! "Why did you do that!?" Molyneux asked. "I figured the mayor was rich, and he'd give all his money to his only daughter," answered the tester. Of course, now the daughter had lots of money, but didn't want to share any of it. So the playtester killed her, too. (Then he moved into the mayor's house!)
I'm anxiously awaiting the release of Fable this summer, but I can't help but wonder: Does freedom turn us into complete psychopaths in the game world, or does freedom allow us to "express ourselves" in the game world without real world consequences?
Re:This has to be the best part of the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that is the real fun of open ended games. It shows you what people are capable of if there are no consequences. Of course, the playtester understood that the mayor and the mayors daughter weren't people....but would he have done it in-game if they
Re:This has to be the best part of the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
When it started out, pvp was the most profitable thing to do, income and exp-wise, and everybody did it who was at least moderately well equipped. When they took out exp for pvp (due to abuse - people would stand just outside of NPC guard ranges and beat each other to death for hours to powerlevel), it shifted, and finally started working like they wanted: The game split into two major camps: Those that PK'd, and those that didn't. A chunk of those that didn't ended up forming into guilds and alliances that hunted PKers and protected low level players who were being hounded by higher leveled PKs who could kill them in one or two hits.
It took about four months for the groups that hunted PK's to turn into PK's themselves - killing people for no reason other than they have a red or gray name (the more people you killed, the farther down a green/red alignment scale you went. It turned gray for about a minute after you kill somebody. This didn't effect the game itself, though, except that NPC guards would attack you with a gray name).
In the long run, the game went from being a holy guild vs. an evil guild to a constantly shifting power struggle between evil-ish guilds - at one point, two major RP guilds, who by their very premise sould be at eternal war, ended up allied against a rapidly growing PK guild that was rapidly threatening both their power bases.
Now, there are very few good-aligned guilds. Most are either overtly evil, or at best neutral. The main good thing about this is that low leveled players have recieved some indirect "protection" from the competing evil guilds - whenever one would start PKing in an area, another would move in to try to get easy loot while they couldn't run to town for safety, usually affording victims an opportunity to run in and recover at least important items.
Re:This has to be the best part of the article... (Score:2)
Re:This has to be the best part of the article... (Score:3, Funny)
It's a serious character flaw. Perhaps I should get therapy.
Re:This has to be the best part of the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
But how did you feel? (Score:2)
I've only ever actually felt uncomfortable being evil in one game - in Star Wars: KOTR when I forced a woman to give me the hunting artifact from her dead husband she was hoping to sell to get her and her kids off planet. I felt
Molyneux Knows His Stuff (Score:2)
Re:Molyneux Knows His Stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Learned his lesson (Score:3, Funny)
Peter Molyneux was also responsible for Black & White [bwgame.com] if you recall.
Guess he learned his lesson.
Freedom in games.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true, I've played both GTA and GTA3 for hours upon hours without ever finishing a mission (or even trying to). Finding creative things to do in the GTA sandbox was enough fun to keep me entertained. Some people don't want missions, or rules. After a days work they just want to come home, and do something fun not virtual chores like fetching Vinnys hookers or something.
Re:Freedom in games.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Slaghter the whole city (they're just mutants anyway)
2. Get somebody else to slaughter the city
3. Fix the water pump for the city and get them to freely give you the item you're after.
4. Steal the item you're after and let the city die of thirst
5. Fix the pump, get the item, then slaughter the city for more exp (they're just mutants, after all. If they trust you, that's their own fault, now isn't it?)
Most problems in Fallout 1 and 2 have at least three ways to go about things - noncombatant (diplomacy/stealth), "good guy", and "kill them all and let God sort it out." - and depending on your character, there's usually different approaches you have to take to make each one work. It's not 100% free, but it gives a good feeling of being free.
Fallout didn't get boring in 10 minutes by any means. Even now, five years later, I still play it once in a while.
I'm with the people above - Molyneux just doesn't make them like he used to.
Re:Freedom in games.. (Score:2)
Re:Freedom in games.. (Score:1)
But what about the proportion of people behaving this way ? The vast majority of people likes to play a game they can have a sensation of freedom, but which provides them guides so they know what to do when they realize "hey, what have i been doing for an hour ? let's really play this game !"
In some wa
Optimistic article writer? (Score:2)
Anyone else who automatically thought "yeah, right" when reading that? As much as I hope Fable and B&W 2 will be fantastic games, this time I'll wait for more reviews. I really wanted B&W to be fantastic, I gave it plenty of time. But nope, I never finished it, and I doubt I ever will.
About Black & White (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a game, it's a sim.
I know, it was advertised as a game. I know, it sort of kind of feels like a game because there are all these little challenges in it that you can succeed or fail at. But when it boils down to it, it's not a game.
The key failings of B&W were the interface (grabbing the ground and pulling is ridiculous. You couldn't play the thing well with just the mouse anyway as you needed shortcuts to move from place to place quickly, why not bite the bullet and give it movement keys like a flight-sim, or any FPS with "fly" on), and the incredibly long tutorial that, while it overemphasized all the little problems with the controls, completely negated to tell people how to manage their worshippers.
The key to managing the little worshippers is simply not to micro-manage them. It's hard to do because we're so used to "Demand-Response" interaction in games as being the route to success, not "Demand-Ignore". Those little guys really do learn. If they learn that when they cry "We need food," some mystical force shows up and gives it to them.. guess what they're going to do next time they're hungry? On the other hand, if a couple starve, they soon figure out that if they need food, they'd best go get it.
Re:About Black & White (Score:2, Insightful)
Ki
In Molyneux's Future There Are No Games (Score:1)
That being said, this is coming from a man who has redefined the definition of 'soft release dates'. I thought the wait for the release of 'Black and White' was ridiculous, but that doesn't come close in comparison when you consider 'Fable'.
Molyneux has perfected the art of giving us great tech demos, movies, buzz, and interviews, while cont
Molyneux thinks too big.. (Score:2)