The doubt is setting in.

#1 Edited by Rowr (5824 posts) -
http://kotaku.com/5060373/molyneux-begs-for-non+gamer-game-review

Between this, the missing co-op, the problems with the limited editions, and the guilty look in Peter's eye.

The doubt is setting in.

heres a scary quote:

"I think a lot of my games in the past, I’ve been like a cook [and I] just keep shoving ingredients in the pot thinking ‘oh, I need more of this, more of that.’ I never tasted it, and then normally it tasted a bit weird at the end. And now what I’ve realized is it’s not the number of features you’ve got in the game, it’s the way those features work together."
#2 Posted by PureRok (4236 posts) -

What he says makes a lot of sense. It isn't scary at all. I think you are just scaring yourself into thinking the game is going to be total ass. From what I've seen the worst it could do is ending up just like Fable 1, which wasn't that bad of a game to begin with. I also read that article and I didn't see anything wrong with his request. If you read a few of the comments it makes a lot of sense what he's asking. Stop sensationalizing everything this man says. That's the problem: people say he hypes his stuff and then everyone is let down, but what I really think is everyone just takes everything he says and blows it out of proportion.

#3 Edited by Rowr (5824 posts) -
PureRok said:
"What he says makes a lot of sense. It isn't scary at all. I think you are just scaring yourself into thinking the game is going to be total ass. From what I've seen the worst it could do is ending up just like Fable 1, which wasn't that bad of a game to begin with. I also read that article and I didn't see anything wrong with his request. If you read a few of the comments it makes a lot of sense what he's asking. Stop sensationalizing everything this man says. That's the problem: people say he hypes his stuff and then everyone is let down, but what I really think is everyone just takes everything he says and blows it out of proportion."
Im familiar with Molyneux and his ways, i have been following him since his bullfrog days.

I would definitely like to see this be one of his most celebrated releases, just saying,  these recent things dont inspire much confidence.

I truly hope he is just super paranoid that the game is not going to do well, and thats all.

But seriously, writing a letter to the reviewer telling them how to do their job, while alluding to the casual audience?  that's a little bit worrying.
#4 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

The doubt should have set in when you found out Fable's big thing would be a built in Dogz sim.

#5 Posted by Tanuki (275 posts) -

I really hate when Developers or Producers ask for reviewers not to associate certain elements of the game in the reviews (MGS4 install times, or dialogue/cutscene length)  And asking to review what should be a relatively "hardcore-esque" game in the eyes of someone who doesn't play games or care if elements mesh together properly is kinda... embarrassing?

I don't know if that's the right word.  But when a producer sends out copies of his game, he needs to shut up and suck it up and say "If I made a good game, I'll get good reviews.  And if I didn't... I should learn from my mistakes."

#6 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -

I enjoyed the first one.. More so because i didnt read into the hype before it launched. So for this one im going to do the same.

#7 Posted by BinaryDragon (638 posts) -

SameGunner said:

"I enjoyed the first one.. More so because i didnt read into the hype before it launched. So for this one im going to do the same."
Same. If you play Fable without listening to the hype I think you'll find it's actually fun. Sometimes I think we all forget that games are for fun. I'm predicting that Fable 2 will be fun, I like fun. Yay for fun.

Lets not lose sight of fun. That's why we all play games after all.

oh and yay for fun (again)
#8 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -
Gunner said:
"I enjoyed the first one.. More so because i didnt read into the hype before it launched. So for this one im going to do the same."
I have enjoyed all of Molyneux's games.

I thought that fable 1 was fine. Although with the list of omission's it was pretty hard not to be a little dissapointed.

I'm buying fable 2 that is almost a certainty, i am just hoping its recieved well, and has enough depth for the regular gamer to appreciate.

#9 Posted by Kush (8889 posts) -

I haven't really doubted Fable 2; I've just been pissed at all the crap that's been happening these few weeks before release. I don't see a problem with him asking a non-gamer to play the game, but I don't know why he'd ask for someone special at a magazine like Variety...does anyone there really play games...like, really!? :P

#10 Posted by Kazona (3094 posts) -
Gunner said:
"I enjoyed the first one.. More so because i didnt read into the hype before it launched. So for this one im going to do the same."
Same here. I played through it several times even.

Something that people also seem to easily forget when it comes to Molyneux is that not everything is within his power to control. I am pretty positive that it was MS who told Lionhead to publish the game as-is and patch in the co-op later. And I also think the limited edition is something beyond his control. Yet everyone seems extremely eager to point the blame to him. Heck for all we know Molyneux pointed out these issues to Microsoft or whoever's responsible for the Limited Edition, and he just got ignored. And, well, he can't really go saying something like that in an interview because then no publisher will ever want to work with him again.
#11 Edited by Cogito (175 posts) -

Street Fighter was crap next to Street Fighter II, might be different genre's, and released in different decades, but, sometimes it takes more then one try to get something right.

#12 Posted by KingBroly (1645 posts) -

They really need to shut Molyneux up.  But I have heard good things from a friend about it who played it about a month ago.

#13 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -
Kush said:
"I haven't really doubted Fable 2; I've just been pissed at all the crap that's been happening these few weeks before release. I don't see a problem with him asking a non-gamer to play the game, but I don't know why he'd ask for someone special at a magazine like Variety...does anyone there really play games...like, really!? :P"
I think the game journo at variety has solid roots in the industry, i cant remember his name.

And from what i understand it wasnt just him that got the letter.
#14 Posted by Kush (8889 posts) -
Rowr said:
"I think the game journo at variety has solid roots in the industry, i cant remember his name.

And from what i understand it wasnt just him that got the letter."
Well Peter M is a weirdo so none of it surprises me. I bet he sent a letter (and review copy) to My Dog Weekly and asked them to review the game as a dog simulator.
#15 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

Peter Molyneux is a god amongst men, and his genius cannot be fathomed by the likes of you and I.

His mind is so great, his full potential will probably never be transferred into one game. Creative genius.

#16 Posted by MattyFTM (14431 posts) -

Knowing what I do about molyneux, I've allways had doubts about this game. It still looks briliant though, I'm just praying it delivers.

Moderator
#17 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -

That's not good, coming from Molyneux....

then again, it's not like he's asking for an exclusively non-gamer review, this could just mean that he's trying to rope in some sales.
Of course that would mean that CAAASSSSUAAAAAALLLSS.
#18 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

Im hoping he is just super paranoid, due to the reception of his last few projects.

He definitely showed it in his interview with Brad.

#19 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -
Rowr said:
"Im hoping he is just super paranoid, due to the reception of his last few projects.

He definitely showed it in his interview with Brad."
I recall an interview where he publicly admitted that Fable 2's animations were sub-par.
So I guess we can hope.
#20 Posted by breton (1437 posts) -

I think I'll just throw my word in here, kind of sidetracking:

A lot of the comments on the article and a few here are saying that when someone reviews a game, they should put aside all previous conceptions of it, all personal tastes, and generally anything that can result in criticism. Some people say they played the original Fable and enjoyed it, simply because they didn't listen to the hype. Well, fine, I'm glad you did. But I could play Big Rigs and enjoy it, doesn't mean everyone will.

There are thousands of critics in the world, each and every one offers their own opinion. Not an opinion derived from putting themselves in the mindset of a "core gamer" or "casual gamer", but.. just his own. If that review happens to be skewed by unmet promises, then fine. That's that one reviewers opinion. As readers, we seek out a critic based on his tastes in games, his ideals, and whatever shit. If you're a casual, read the daily paper's review of Fable. If you're a joe schmoe gamer, read GameSpot or IGN. If you're someone that want's a review real down on a personal level, read a blog.

Don't ask a critic to put his mind into the perspective of another. A critic writes for his readers, and his readers expect an honest oppinion that should be shared when they finally pick up the game.

#21 Edited by Rowr (5824 posts) -

I dont know, i disagree to an extent.

I think a review should give all possible readers, an idea if they think its worth buying, depending on their tastes.

A good review should be informative. Anyone can just write out their opinion.

Generally a good reviewer will have no trouble spotting the difference between something that is badly done, and something they just think is bad.

Otherwise dont put a score on it, thats the way i see it.

Though i guess at the same time I agree there must be some personal outlook of it, and the smart gamer will find which critics they fall more in line with in tastes.

#22 Posted by breton (1437 posts) -
Rowr said:
I think a review should give all possible readers, an idea if they think its worth buying, depending on their tastes. A good review should be informative. Anyone can just write out their opinion. Generally a good reviewer will have no trouble spotting the difference between something that is badly done, and something they just think is bad.
I've always considered a review an opinion. Nothing more. Of the few I've written (not here) it's never been about whether I think someone else will enjoy it. It's whether I enjoy it. It's up to the reader to decide whether their purchase should be based on my review. If it covers things they don't care about, well then they're reading the wrong one.

From the papers, to the large scale game websites, to the blogs.. they all have different demographics, and their opinions are adjusted accordingly. That's not saying a reviewer should change his opinion to accommodate to the readers, it's saying a reviewer should express his opinion.. to a community that will share his thoughts. If everyone wrote reviews from the same perspective, there wouldn't be a point anymore. Like you said, it's up to the gamer to find which critics they fall more in line with.

And what's with not putting a score on it? That's just asking people to by sympathetic. Not exactly how I think the industry should run - Kane & Lynch, anyone?
#23 Edited by Rowr (5824 posts) -
breton said:
"Rowr said:
I think a review should give all possible readers, an idea if they think its worth buying, depending on their tastes. A good review should be informative. Anyone can just write out their opinion. Generally a good reviewer will have no trouble spotting the difference between something that is badly done, and something they just think is bad.
I've always considered a review an opinion. Nothing more. Of the few I've written (not here) it's never been about whether I think someone else will enjoy it. It's whether I enjoy it. It's up to the reader to decide whether their purchase should be based on my review. If it covers things they don't care about, well then they're reading the wrong one.

From the papers, to the large scale game websites, to the blogs.. they all have different demographics, and their opinions are adjusted accordingly. That's not saying a reviewer should change his opinion to accommodate to the readers, it's saying a reviewer should express his opinion.. to a community that will share his thoughts. If everyone wrote reviews from the same perspective, there wouldn't be a point anymore. Like you said, it's up to the gamer to find which critics they fall more in line with.

And what's with not putting a score on it? That's just asking people to by sympathetic. Not exactly how I think the industry should run - Kane & Lynch, anyone?
"
I dont mean - dont put a score on it to be sympathetic. I just think its not really a review if its only written as your opinion. I guess i prefer the more, "inform me as if i have no idea about the game and give me a run down on what i might like or not like about it." or as i call the "traditional" review.

I guess there are two trains of thought, review for other gamers, or review for yourself (but still for other gamers)

Probably not the best way to label it, but thats all i could think of.  I actually like a little of both in my reviews i guess. I mean if your just putting down your opinion on the game, its just a blog? It doesnt need a score.

Ok so what we were talking about again?

breton said:
"Don't ask a critic to put his mind into the perspective of another..."
I disagree in the sense that, as outlined above, i think a review should require that the reviewer puts their mind into the possible perspective of other gamers (the wide range of readers). Which comes back to the letter that was sent by Peter Molyneux which insinuates that:

a) The reviewer was not going to do that and does not know how to write for their audience. (doesn't know how to do their job)

or

b) He is trying to make an excuse for the games lack of depth


breton said:
"...A critic writes for his readers, and his readers expect an honest oppinion that should be shared when they finally pick up the game."
Agree.

p.s =I hope jeff comes in here and goes "WTF are you guys on about?"
#24 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -
http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/10/10/molynuex_more_about_emotions_less_about_trees-2.html

Peter speaks on the letter sent to reviewers.


"I think there are two reviews you could do and you could be very objective for," Molyneux said. "You could review this as a gamer's game and I think it will do well as a gamer's game. But really it has been designed to be a casual game as well, to be accessible and that would be interesting for me."

"This is what I was trying to say in the letter: Why don't you, after you've done the review give a copy of the game to someone who doesn't play games and see how they get on. Because you may find that is a completely different experience they are getting that of course us as gamers couldn't hope to ever get because we've been polluted by years and years of games. That's what I was kind of saying, I wasn't trying to steer you in to review it this way. "

The letter was spurred by Molyneux's belief that Fable II, while a game built in a genre traditionally most appealing to hardcore gamers, is trying to attract a more mainstream, perhaps even casual market.

"I think increasingly now we are making games which are trying to appeal to not just us but a wider audience," he said. "That's certainly what Fable is trying to do. It's interesting when I watch (a non-gamer) play, they just obsess about completely different things than what I as a gamer would. They are far less interesting in leveling up their character and far more interested in making sure the dog's OK. And that is quite a bizarre experience to see."

"I'm not being critical of Fable but I do think that Fable is quite a distance away from what people in Japan are used to (in terms of role-playing games.)," he said. "There isn't a million things you can configure for every battle, there are just those three simple buttons. What we are trying to do is make the experience of having your own hero, we're trying to open that up to a broader audience as well as keeping our core audience happy."

That doesn't mean, Molyneux said, that Fable II wasn't created for fans of role-playing games, but that they way they approached the genre was more about emotional connection and less about game play mechanics.

"It all comes down to he experience at the end of the day," he said. "How it makes you feel. I've come to learn more and more as a designer that it's all about how it makes you feel and less about the mechanics of whether you have growing trees or all of those things."

"I have been guilty in the past, I think, of shoving in more and more of these mechanics in the thought I would be making a better experience but actually... I've forgotten to ask does that mechanic make you feel any better or more involved, or more into the game."

#25 Posted by Nemesis (317 posts) -

All he wants is that there is a review for hardcore gamers, and also casual gamers. He has been really pushing the idea that Fable 2 is suppose to attract both types of players. I think it is an odd request because their are casual game reviewers out there.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.