Peter Molyneux Apologizes for Fable 113
A message from Peter Molyneux.
There is something I have to say. And I have to say it because I love making games. When a game is in development, myself and the development teams I work with constantly encourage each other to think of the best features and the most ground-breaking design possible.
However, what happens is that we strive to include absolutely everything we've ever dreamt of and, in my enthusiasm, I talk about it to anyone who'll listen, mainly in press interviews. When I tell people about what we're planning, I'm telling the truth, and people, of course, expect to see all the features I've mentioned. And when some of the most ambitious ideas get altered, redesigned or even dropped, people rightly want to know what happened to them.
If I have mentioned any feature in the past which, for whatever reason, didn't make it as I described into Fable, I apologise. Every feature I have ever talked about WAS in development, but not all made it. Often the reason is that the feature did not make sense. For example, three years ago I talked about trees growing as time past. The team did code this but it took so much processor time (15%) that the feature was not worth leaving in. That 15 % was much better spent on effects and combat. So nothing I said was groundless hype, but people expecting specific features which couldn't be included were of course disappointed. If that's you, I apologise. All I can say is that Fable is the best game we could possibly make, and that people really seem to love it.
I have come to realise that I should not talk about features too early so I am considering not talking about games as early as I do. This will mean that the Lionhead games will not be known about as early as they are, but I think this is the more industry standard.
Our job as the Lionhead family of studios is to be as ambitious as we possibly can. But although we jump up and down in glee about the fabulous concepts and features we're working on, I will not mention them to the outside world until we've implemented and tested them, and they are a reality.
Thank you for reading.
Peter.
Standing firm (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd really like to see is an apology from Warren Spector for DX:IW, but all we got is that post-mortem on IGN on how he prefers console games and that it was a wonder the first Deus Ex didn't completely bomb.
My only problem with the game (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone know of a nice long RPG in the works? I remember playing Wizardry 7 for months before I was able to get all the way through it.
He shouldn't (Score:0, Interesting)
He shouldn't apologize for not getting this or that feature in, but he might consider apologizing for not making games that are actually fun.
With 'actually fun', I mean "beyond the first hour". Every recent Molyneux game is the same. Hype, hype, hype -- which he "explains" above (personally I feel that it goes beyond him getting exited about his own product, but that's me). Then the game comes out, gets rave reviews (like B&W getting "9.1" from GameSpot, IIRC) and impress people who watch it but utterly fails to deliver a good game
I think the problem is that he's having his fun actually developing the game, forgetting that the people who are to buy it doesn't get to share that.
Could be worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My only problem with the game (Score:3, Interesting)
15%.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no game programmer, but this seems a bit ridiculous... what kind of code were they using for this? Is time passing so fast in this game that you need to be constantly updating the trees?
Re:Fable Features (Score:4, Interesting)
This should also apply to woodcutters. Want a wooden shield? Need some wood, buddy. "but there isn't a single tree for thirty leagues!". "Well, then, better plant some, no?"
Also, fish, and ore. Ore should be interesting. It has to be mined. Miners are needed to go down there and the more "enterprising fellows" should be able to hire people to mine the mines and extract the ore. "Want a full body armor? Need 50 kilos of metal ore, buddy." "But, there isn't any ore around here!" "Well, then, better mine some, or get a wagon and go to the land of the dwarves and bring me back some."
This would then effectively create a merchant class.
It would also be fun to have food shortages, and fights outside the inn to break into the storage and steal their food so the 30 paladins could be bested by three enterprising thieves and three oxen carts, for lack of food.
Of course, same goes for leather. Want leather greaves? Find me a cow and a tanner. "But there's not a single cow for miles!" "Well then, buddy, wanna wooden shield instead?"
And a million GP won't make a difference when you hear "Wizard needs food, badly".
Finally, rangering skills would be invaluables: "Just got this deer, we can eat folks."
Re:Reality. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was wondering that too. Why not instead of gradually grow, they jump a little? But only when they are off screen and not visible, and not during combat, if the hieght changes were subtle you would not notice them grow, just one day they are bigger, and you don't have to have the cpu calculating every second how to draw them.
Biggest Missing "Feature" (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, I consider the ability to play as either gender not a "feature", but a requisite when playing an RPG.
Re:Impulse Control (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fable Features (Score:3, Interesting)
And nintendo did exactly that with Animal Crossing. You can plant an apple, after a few days it'll be a full size tree, after a few more it'll produce apples.
Plus if you don't play in a while, your town will be overgrown with weeds and the residents of your town will wonder where the hell you've been.
Re:Biggest Missing "Feature" (Score:4, Interesting)