Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Molyneux on the Vanity of Gamers 91

Posted by Zonk from the i-think-personal-appearance-when-i-think-gamers dept.
Fable 2 is turning out to be a fantasy game unlike any other, with a new feature announced almost every time Molyneux opens his mouth. At a games industry event in Brighton, he sat down for a chat with Gamasutra to discuss using vanity as an incentive. "Fable 2 will take a similar dramatic approach to the concept. Drained of health points and laid out on the ground, players will have the choice of losing experience points - the game's key method of building up a selection of fearsome fighting moves - and immediately jumping up to regain the action, or letting the enemy close in and work them over with stabs, kicks and punches ... Worse than that, when you eventually get up again to fight another day, the marks of your beating will remain for all to see." These scars will be important, somehow, in Fable 2 online mode, a topic they still aren't discussing in detail.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Molyneux on the Vanity of Gamers More

Molyneux on the Vanity of Gamers

Comments Filter:

  • Vanity in one game (Score:5, Funny)

    by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @01:35PM (#20060073)
    I thought this was about the vanity in gamers that call themselves elite. You know, the ones that use SKU as a word instead of model, those that call it Squeenix instead of Square-Enix, that refer to shooters as shmups, those that say Rogue-Like when they've never personally played Rouge, those that refer to Shigeru Miyamoto as Shiggy, and other stupidity to make themselves feel better than everyone else.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by furball ( 2853 )
      That post was full of humility eh?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Pluvius ( 734915 )
      Uh, I do most of those things because they're quicker to type and/or make more sense, not because they make me feel like some awesome smark [wikipedia.org].

      "SKU:" Quicker to type than "version," less ambiguous than "model."
      "Squenix:" Quicker to type.
      "Shmups:" An abbreviation of "shoot-'em-ups," not "shooters." Shooters make up a totally different genre. I usually type it out, but I have no problem with people who use the abbreviation.
      "Roguelike:" OK, genius, tell us how you would describe those RPGs that contain rand

      • Re:Vanity in one game (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Broken scope ( 973885 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:22PM (#20060821) Homepage
        The only ones that really bug me are the "hardcore" gamers.... who play either madden, counterstrike, Wow, star craft... or any game exclusively. Then there are the ones who spend more time bitching about what game is better or how all the new games suck, then they actually spend enjoying the games they hold so highly. Actually I just hate all the asshats who claim to be hardcore gamers then act like it makes them an authority any game.

        When ever someone say "I'm a hardcore gamer", I have the urge to kick them in the teeth.

        • Re:Vanity in one game (Score:5, Funny)

          by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:39PM (#20061077)
          Then there are the ones who spend more time bitching about what game is better or how all the new games suck, then they actually spend enjoying the games they hold so highly.

          You'll enjoy this recent SomethingAwful article where they look at postings from a forum where everybody is convinced that Fallout and Fallout 2 are the best games ever, to the extent that they actually threaten to kill Bethesda developers for "ruining" the franchise. (Bethesda's version is not even released yet!)

          http://www.somethingawful.com/d/weekend-web/fallou t-scarleteen-armenianclub.php [somethingawful.com]
          • I believe I have some teeth to kick.

            I loved fallout... but I've moved on.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 )
              This isn't even about moving on from Fallout, really. These people are attached to Fallout 1/2. Fine. They want Fallout 3 to be exactly the same. Fine, if unrealistic. However, they're treating anyone who likes Fallout 3 (thus far) as if they must be a shill (among other things, like unnecessary personal attacks, but this is the one that irked me the most). Is it incomprehensible to these people that someone might actually DISAGREE with them? "Oh, you claim to like the first two games, and the third too...

              • However, they're treating anyone who likes Fallout 3 (thus far) as if they must be a shill (among other things, like unnecessary personal attacks, but this is the one that irked me the most). Is it incomprehensible to these people that someone might actually DISAGREE with them? "Oh, you claim to like the first two games, and the third too... you're on Bethesda's payroll, buddy."

                Since Fallout 3 is unpublished and, indeed, unfinished at this point in time, anyone who claims to like it is very likely eithe

                • Well, there is a certain amount of concrete features that Bethesda has released in previews. Which are technically "marketing materials," but at the same time they're an accurate reflection of what the game will be like. (Yes, it's unfinished, but it's close to being finished and the featureset is without a doubt final at this point.) So it's quite possible for someone to have read those and be excited about the game based on the facts available without being on anybody's payroll.

                  In any case, your argument

        • The only ones that really bug me are the "hardcore" gamers.... who play either madden, counterstrike, Wow, star craft... or any game exclusively.

          Anyone who claims to be a hardcore gamer and only plays one game...well, isn't.

          Then there are the ones who spend more time bitching about what game is better or how all the new games suck, then they actually spend enjoying the games they hold so highly.

          Personally, I prefer to bitch about how certain famous games *cough*StarCraft*cough* are overrated and not the bes

        • I've always liked saying this about or to the "Hardcore Gamers":
          Playing Halo doesn't make you a gamer any more than eating a taco makes you a Mexican.

          Usually said to the Halo/Madden/CounterStrike/Final Fantasy people.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 )
            Your analogy is flawed. Anyone who continues to invest time into games, no matter how many games they invest time into, no matter how much time they invest, is a gamer. Obviously, someone who plays a game once, and then never touches it again, isn't a gamer, however, someone who just plays Halo is. I'm sorry you don't like Halo, or whatever it is that causes you to use that horribly flawed analogy, but those people ARE gamers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rifter ( 147452 )

          The only ones that really bug me are the "hardcore" gamers.... who play either madden, counterstrike, Wow, star craft... or any game exclusively. Then there are the ones who spend more time bitching about what game is better or how all the new games suck, then they actually spend enjoying the games they hold so highly. Actually I just hate all the asshats who claim to be hardcore gamers then act like it makes them an authority any game.

          When ever someone say "I'm a hardcore gamer", I have the urge to kick th

      • ironically, look at the post title of http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=258237&c id=20061089 [slashdot.org]

    • ATTN: Abbreviations/Pet Names == Vanity (Score:5, Funny)

      by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:10PM (#20060623) Homepage Journal
      Thanks for clearing this up. I hate the vain IMers who use 'LOL' instead of typing out the ha ha has or using the phrase 'I'm laughing out loud' too!

      Perhaps we can combine forces and release an informative newsletter!
    • SKU is a common retail term (meaning stock keeping unit). My high school job was in retail and I have no qualms in calling products, SKU, or anyone else for that matter. It's a totally appropriate term.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        SKU is a common retail term (meaning stock keeping unit). My high school job was in retail and I have no qualms in calling products, SKU, or anyone else for that matter. It's a totally appropriate term.

        That's kind of his point. It's a retail term. Not a gamers term. [insertcredit.com] Since when did gamers start talking like retail executives?

        While there might be room for debate on the term 'Rogue-like' and obviously he meant shoot'em ups instead of shooters (I pray), aside from that I agree whole heartedly with what he says

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dintech ( 998802 )
        Basically you're just emulating corporate weasel words to make yourself sound more important than you actually are. Carry on right ahead young sir.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mgblst ( 80109 )
        Well, maybe is this was a retail site, you would be correct.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
      I don't know why you'd have to have played Rogue to legitimately use the word Rogue-like. Angband, Nethack, Moria, etc are all "Rogue-like", and it's a very useful way of referring to the genre of similar games with a very recognizable style even if you haven't played the original. What's a non-vain way of saying it? Should I stop saying "sci-fi" because I haven't read whatever the first science fiction book supposedly was?

      And I have played Rogue, at least enough to know that I would rather play any othe
  • Makes sense. Even in Fable 1, if you took a good hit to the face without armor, it'd leave marks which you'd have to look at every time the camera cut to your face...God forbid you wore cloth, because you'd look like a surgery fetishist before you finished the game, with gashes, scratches, etc all over. If they allow you to bring your character online, would you rather look like a badass, or like everyone's favorite prison bitch? Or, conversely, would you want to look 100 times as abused as everyone else?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Broken scope ( 973885 )
      I used plate/mail and I was still all kinds of fucked up. Though my old guy just looked freaking badass in the white magicians outfit. He freaking pulsed power.... to bad the towns people were really scared of him because i screwed up the prison escape 6 freaking times...

    • Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:29PM (#20060941) Journal
      Why not? There _will_ be people whose goal will be exactly to look as disturbing and menacing as possible. And there _will_ be people who'll wear "I'm the smart guy who took the xp advantage over dumb aesthetics" like a medal of honour.

      You can see both sides of the medal in WoW too, that is, both PM's point and the counter-point.

      On one hand, if you take a census of the population (repeatedly at different times, to have a good statistic), on any server, you'll find that, with exactly one notable exception, the more a race looks human and pretty, the more players play it. Before Burning Crusade, that meant there were more Humans or Night Elves than the whole Horde combined, no matter what advantages the Horde races got. Even as everyone was bitching about shamen and warlock-killing un-fearable Undead, most people didn't actually want to go and play one.

      That's one major reason why the Horde got Blood Elves in the Burning Crusade expansion. Blizzard just caved in and realized that the only thing that would even start to even the odds was to give the Horde a pretty and human-looking race. In fact, one prettier than the Night Elves on the Alliance side.

      So that would sorta illustrate PM's point that, indeed, a lot of people will take looking pretty over being an effective killing machine.

      The counter-point, though, is that notable exception I've mentioned: the undead. (Technically called the "Forsaken".) The WoW undead aren't the pretty sanitized VTM vampires, but something more hideous than anything you could get in Fable or in most other games. They look literally like someone who's been rotting in a grave for two weeks and then got dug out. You know, with missing flesh, tattered clothes, bones poking out, etc.

      The funny thing is, the undead were the most played Horde race. Ok, so the Will Of The Forsaken ability was a major selling point too, but even then it illustrates that some people do take power over looking pretty. But the funny thing is, even after WOTF got nerfed, the undead _still_ are disturbingly popular. Some people actually _like_ looking like that. Go figure.
      • I had no lower jaw, bones sticking out were the least of my aesthetic problems. I could only ever look good if I wore a mask.
      • > That's one major reason why the Horde got Blood Elves in the Burning Crusade expansion.
        > Blizzard just caved in and realized that the only thing that would even start to even the
        > odds was to give the Horde a pretty and human-looking race. In fact, one prettier than
        > the Night Elves on the Alliance side.

        I thought the Blood Elves were the one that had the big controversy... ... some developer or beta-tester or someone decided that the Blood Elves were just *TOO* good-looking to be an evil race,
        • Actually, the controversy was over the buffing up of BE males. They were extremely slender and skinny before, and after they actually had some muscle.

          It's arguable which model looks better, but it wasn't to uglify them by any stretch of the imagination.
      • Gotta keep in mind, you can make a pretty serious Lord Voldemort lookalike from the Forsaken, for when playing your "Harry Potter in Hermione's Secret Chamber" LARP sessions...
      • Undead's different. Orc, troll, furry... seen it, done it.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by penp ( 1072374 )
        So you mean people actually like looking like a beefed up man with woman hips who looks like he has a constant back problem? Human males always looked awkward to me, and even more so Night Elf males. Don't get me started on Dwarves or Gnomes. Not everyone plays Horde just because they like the racial abilities, a lot of us do for two reasons:
        1) I get to look like a bad ass.
        2) Most alliance players have no idea what they're doing.

        Many PVP servers back in the day were very close to a 1:1 ratio. There are
      • It's common sense, really, If you're gonna be staring at a character's backside for 16 hours a day, wouldn't you prefer it to be an attractive backside of whatever gender that suits your personal orientation?

        The popularity of the undead may seem a bit disturbing, but hey, as long as you're not hurting anyone (living), I couldn't care less what your fetishes are.
  • Now that is a laugh. Keep promising us the world, you crazy Frenchman...

    Rob

  • Molyneaux's Fables (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Puff of Logic ( 895805 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @01:48PM (#20060277)
    Molyneux is a guy I have very mixed feelings about. He headed up Bullfrog when they made Dungeon Keeper, one of the first games I've ever played from the evil perspective, and a game that earns him huge cool points in my mind. The trouble is, the guy keeps talking about making games that I really want to play but then isn't able to deliver. Black and White is an excellent example: huge potential, but the delivery lacked...something. I can't decide whether I like the guy for being such a visionary, or dislike him for constantly taunting me with game experiences I can't have!
    • He has vision... but he can't seem to bring it to fruition. I don't believe a damned word he says anymore, most;y because he can't seem to tell us when he is talking about his glorious vision, and he can't seem to tell us when he is talking about what the game is actually going to be like.

    • Re:Molyneaux's Fables (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:34PM (#20061007)
      Here's the problem with Molyneux: While his games have great concepts and ideas, the execution is usually lacking.

      Dungeon Keeper had a great concept, but as a game it was kind of eh. Dungeon Keeper 2, on the other hand, is a much better game in every way. Ditto with Black and White and Black and White 2. For some reason, Molyneux's sequels come out to be better games than the originals... either this is because he needs some feedback from the gaming community to decide what to change, or that he pays less personal attention to the game to give more power to his 'underlings' to add features. (i.e. skipping the tutorial in Black and White 2, but even that was a patch.)

      Interestingly, both Dungeon Keeper and Black and White had the exact same bug. In both games, once you set your minion to worship, they were supposed to leave when they get hungry or tired, go get some food, then come back to the job. Instead, they would worship until they starved to death and died. Both Dungeon Keeper 2 and Black and White 2 fixed this bug.

      I will give him this though: Although he makes crazy promises, like a lot of bigwig game producers, he's a lot better at following-up with them than most. I think Black and White contained nearly every feature it was touted to contain. (Although I know Fable was missing more than a few.) Also, his games come out at least remotely close to "on time."

      P.S. What was with that level in Black and White where they stole your creature away? The creature was the selling point of the game, and frankly the most fun part of it by far. Then you go to an island, and bam it's gone. That sucked.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LKM ( 227954 )
        I think the reason why his first attempts usually suck is that his ideas are too big for the development time of a single game, and he doesn't have the financial resources to say "it's done when it's done."

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )
      Molyneux is a visionary. And he's great at that. As a game creator, he lacks a few things. Mostly what is lacking in most visionaries: He doesn't see the "long run".

      You can say about his games what you want, but they are never some kind of clone of what's been done a billion times before. They usually are either something completely new or at least twist things around in a way that make them look like something completely new. Not a bad thing if you ask me.

      The problem with him is that his vision usually sto

  • Unlike any other? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @01:48PM (#20060281)
    Unlike any other? I dunno, sounding a LOT like Fable 1 so far. Free-roaming so vast that one of the devs got lost, for example... Yeah, sure it was.

    You'd think PM would have learned his lesson on Fable 1 about opening his mouth, and I think I remember him SAYING he learned his lesson (Why did I believe him?) but here he goes again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      Unlike any other? I dunno, sounding a LOT like Fable 1 so far.

      Is that a bad thing? Fable is the best adventure/RPG hybrid I've played since Quest for Glory 4. My only complaint is that it was too short. Seemed like it was just warming up and then it ended. My girlfriend actually got a bit sniffly when we found out there was no more Fable.

  • Schmiss, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MSTCrow5429 ( 642744 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @01:48PM (#20060283)
    I think this will cater to machismo, not seen as a drawback.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zipwow ( 1695 )
      Yeah, it'd be more of a deterrent if your avatar was just rendered with fewer polygons.

      -Zipwow
  • I want to put scars on my Mii and import him into Fable 2 for the Wii.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nuzak ( 959558 )
      > So when will this be ported to the Wii?

      It'll be ported around the day that Molyneux actually delivers on his promises. Note the owner of Lionhead Studios.
      • so, in other words, when he makes a game where we don't have some old guy telling us what we have to do every 2 minutes in a voice over you can't turn off?

        that might be a while ...

  • Know who this is going to bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @02:12PM (#20060659)
    The guys that pick the "hot chick" character in every game.

  • More of the same from Molyneux (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vonPoonBurGer ( 680105 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2007 @03:10PM (#20061497)
    As far as I'm concerned, this guy has burned all of his credibility. Years from now, I suspect someone somewhere will write a retrospective of his career arc, and we'll find out how one of his former colleagues at Bullfrog was responsible for keeping his wilder impulses in check, keeping his visions grounded in reality, and keeping his mouth shut when the gaming press was around. Whoever or whatever it was that kept him from doing the same thing back at Bullfrog, it's clear that that influence is sorely needed now at Lionhead. His inability to reproduce at Lionhead the level of success and critical acclaim he received at Bullfrog makes me think that a) at the very least he wasn't solely responsible for those fantastic game designs and b) he's not the visionary designer he's sometimes made out to be. I've completely stopped paying attention to his hyperbole, as his track record at Lionhead has shown that he's not able to cash the checks his mouth keeps writing. Will Wright is a top game designer. Shigeru Miyamoto is a top game designer. Molyneux is a superb pitch-man, but maybe not so much a top-tier game designer. Perhaps he should give advertising or PR a try.
  • This gamer says Molyneux needs to talk less and deliver more. This guy is in grave danger of being relegated to has-been windbag status.

  • "Gamers treat the button-masher with disdain but we don't want to make them feel foolish," Molyneux said. "We want to make them feel like the hardcore, but they won't get so many rewards as the hardcore player."

    Kind of like how Guitar Hero tries to make us non guitar-playing types not feel foolish.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close