Molyneux Reveals Why Fable 3 Will Piss Players Off

[DoctorObviously]

I remember a thread about Mr. Molyneux here. The OP asked everyone what people thought about him. Well, I still say that he can do and say what he wants. We'll review the game when it comes out.

 

[boholikeu]

How is this "horrible" for RPGs exactly? All it does is take away the number crunching aspect of the genre, which imo was never RPGs' selling point anyway.


-

You are incorrect, that is exactly the selling point of RPG games which have pretty much always been around alongside their "action" based counterparts.

Storyline, character development, and other things have been associated with the RPG market but that is not what makes them RPGs. What makes a game an RPG is when your personal abillity has little or nothing to do with the outcome of the events in a game. Rather than having to twitch around and swing your sword, the results of a sword attack are dictated by an assigned skill level and a random number generator simulating die rolls. This is the key element of what makes an RPG an RPG. "Action RPGS" are games that tried to bring this into real time, typically involving very little in the way of player reflexs, and the determination of results by stats and skill selection. This is also incidently why a lot of action gamers have gotten upset with a lot of "action RPGs" over the years as when they dodge a fireball or arrow or something (or think they have) the picture simply curves to hit them anyway because the actual position of the characters never really mattered, all that mattered was that LOS (Line Of Sight) existed, an attack was made, and the skills/rolls determined a hit at that time period. The real time graphics simply being a fancy representation. The reason why some so-called RPGs now are not RPGs is because you can engage in "gamepad evasion" and hitting and missing is dependant on your abillity to line up crosshairs and such far more than any kind of skills.

Another key point of RPGs is of course customization, the abillity to not only select abillities, but to equip your characters as you want and decide what you want them to do. Something which incidently takes a LOT of programming, and can be tricky to implement. A lot of RPGs and action RPGs in their latest incarnations have been doing away with this kind of thing and in many cases ceasing to be RPGs at all. For example in "Mass Effect" all of your companions do a specific thing. You don't for example have to make choices on what kind of weapon each character with master, and which powers they will master (given a lack of points to learn everything), and that's a step down from say Knights Of The Old Republic (to which this was a spiritual successor) where you not only had far more gear choices/slots than even ME1, but could also develop each character in several very differant directions.

The "truest" RPGs and the ones I miss the most are games like Wizardry where combat is turn based (totally stat driven) and instead of one protaganist you create, you design an entire party of six with a dozen or so differant races and classes and thus have to choose what to take with you and build a balanced party based on your playstyle. While traditionally a group of "silent protaganists" games like Wizardry 8 showed that voice acted personalities can be added to a whole party of characters, with them commenting at differant times (with a whole ton of differant voice selections/personalities to selec from... and we're talking more than the "combat comments" and "grunts" from other games).

I am not saying that this kind of thing is to everyone's taste, I understand it's an anathema to a lot of hard-core twitch gamers. However there ARE plenty of RPGS fans out there, and there is no reason both groups cannot be catered to. The biggest problem of course is greed because while the RPG market can sustain a pretty massive profit, the success of a major action title can be bigger. Hybrids trying to make both sides happy, usually wind up annoying both groups, and while a few have been decent, mostly I think that tendency has caused development to go wrong in more cases than it has gone right.


Fable was always very much a "lite" RPG, but you still had to make desicians on character build. Yes you COULD max everything out unlike many RPGs (part of what makes it 'lite') but typically not until the end of the game, so you had to carefully choose what to build up especially in the beginning based on how you wanted to play. Of course to be entirely honest one of the criticisms of Fable has largely been that some playstyles/selections are more viable than others which tends to lead to most people playing exactly the same way which is not a good thing.

But hey, let Peter Moneyneaux do what he wants to, it's his game series. I bought both of his previous "Fable" games and actually wound up defending them as action RPGs despite some criticisms. If he goes in this direction I simply am not going to buy Fable 3. Going by his reaction he suspects this I think, and pretty much feels he'll draw in enough new gamers to more than counterbalance the people he loses.

Fair enough about the RNG mechanics if that's your thing, but as for customization it still looks like there's going to be a fair amount of it in Fable 3. The only really difference is that instead of plugging points into a character stats gui you'll customize your character by actually playing the game differently. Old Bethesda games used to be like this, if I remember correctly (although they still had the character stats sheets as well).

 

[PeterDawson]

So Fable 3 is going to be even more boring than Fable 2 or Fable 1? No problem, don't care. Seriously, this guy needs to stop with his 'hype,' since it keeps falling flat. Hell, Mass Effect 2's choice system is the nuke to the slingshot pellet that is the Fable series, plus Mass Effect actually has decent gameplay and a decent plot.

 

[The Cake Is Annoying]

Maybe I'm just a craven optimist, but this actually gets my hopes up about this game.

This is Peter Molyneux.

Don't get excited until it comes out.

Agreed. This man has overpromised and disappointed many before.

 

[Toar]

Okay, I'm calling it now. The entirety of this game will be spent chasing around the same generic NPCs and spamming a button to either massage them or molest them, depending upon whether you want to look like Jesus or Satan.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Thank God someone seems to KNOW what an RPG is now! Honestly, every RPG since the NES has been the same. Sure, there are new health bars, talk options, and other gimmicks to keep the fans happy, but it has been the same RPG since, well, Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Outamyhead]

Didn't play the last two, might be due to the fact I didn't have a PC up to spec for the first one, and they haven't bothered releasing the sequel on PC (or any other platform) either, nor do I own an Xbox (the only current gen I don't own at the moment).

 

[vaderaider]

Well atleast he isnt hyping it up as much as fable 2.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

Peter Molyneux over hyping his games, how original. but I was never really into the game, but I am pissed at Molyneux for, once again, making a press release that is nothing but an ad that he get's paid for.

 

[RockThineWorld]

Sounds to me that Molyneux has finally looked at the Fable franchise, compared it to other fantasy games and said "Ah, wait, it's not as ground-breaking as I thought it was going to be!"

Whatever changes are made to the game, I'm sure they can only improve upon a rather decent series. Sure, both the past Fable games haven't been perfect, but I think the developers are realising it now and thinking "What can we do to make this a bloody amazing game?"

 

[lizards]

1 i didnt get fable 1 or 2
2 im not getting fable 3
3 am i the only one who finds dragging beggers to slavers and then they try harder to get away they closer you get in a game and they are bragging (kind of) about it very very disturbing?

 

[BloodyThoughts]

Well, this sounds pretty good. But Ive learned from experience that Peter Molyneux will promise the ability to fly and then give you a wagon. Or, someone who hypes something to no end and then doesn't deliver.

 

[Normalgamer]

Instead of orbs, a character's followers will decide his level of stature in the game.

So, very much in the style of Black & White then? I don't mind per se but B&W1 was vastly superior to #2.

Black and White 1 sucked, really badly. You spend half the game without your creature, being a bad guy is pointless since it gets you nothing, but if your a good guy your villagers all become whiney little brats who every five seconds yell "GIVE US MORE (Insert thing they want here)". Atleast in black and white 2 it shows how your creature is learning, unlike one were instead of teaching my creature to shoot fiyahballs at opposing towns, I accidently taught him to kill trees.

 

[w-Jinksy]

I'm excited i wont lie and no matter what anyone says or the dissapointment i had with fable 2 i will still be excited, it's molyneux hes good at hype.

 

[Velocirapture07]

Those changes sound...gimmicky. That's really the best word for them. As far as I can tell, the only major real gameplay change is the health thing and it's not as if anyone's a strange to regenerating health in games at this point anymore. Hell, it's not even a first in RPGs.

The weapon thing? I don't think that'll piss me off so much as slightly annoy me. Having weapons decide your appearance is just asking for problem with the kinds of people like me who obsess over their character's looks. I mean, it has the potential to block you off from a myriad of weaponry simply because it'll screw up the perfect appearance you wanted.

Yeah I have to agree. The changes sound interesting at best, but none of the things listed really do it for me.

How about instead of magical changing swords, Peter just puts in more than 3 kinds of weapons??? (I too obsess over how my character looks, so this will probably be a problem for me as well) And instead of punishing and rewarding children, we get a couple more hours of content.

I also have to agree with some posters about the regen. health. I don't have a problem with it necessarily, but I don't know if it fits in an RPG.

 

[Velocirapture07]

I think most gamers with respond to that news (or anything else that gobshite spouts) with complete apathy and disinterest rather than anger.

Quoted for the god-damned truth!

Sooooo... anyone actually have plans to play Fable 3? Me? Not so much!!

Yeah....I'm not so sure. I was a big fan of the 1st Fable, but 2 just seemed to be lacking a lot. However, it is the only videogame my sister has ever finished so I guess it was good for something.

 

[matrix3509]

I've been conditioned over the years to take what Peter says and tone it down by about a thousand percent.

 

[Straz]

I think most gamers with respond to that news (or anything else that gobshite spouts) with complete apathy and disinterest rather than anger.

Concur.
I ceased trusting Melyneux after Fable II looked to be actually COOL, not to mention in anyway different to Fable I.
Appearances can deceive, but this time I am wary...
Do not trust his words.

 

[Straz]

i can only reaffirm lacktheknack's statement. this is molyneux. take the news with a metric fuck-ton of salt. and then some.

So true oh so true.

Anyone else feel they got a bad deal with Fable 2? I mean I havn't felt that let down and over hyped over a game since....since...well Oblivion.

I really enjoyed Oblivion, and I seriously thought it was good.
But then again, I never really played Morrowind so I have nothing to compare it with.
Slightly Off topic: Has anyone else noticed Fallout 1 and 2 fans bitching and whining about Fallout 3?
It's quite pathetic.

 

[clzark]

this doesn't piss me off it just makes me totally uninterested in the game

 

[noobyplasm]

Not yet they aren't but the "person" in question is really trying hard to make them dictatorial.
Now on topic.
Molyneux should gtfo.For every good idea he has he includes 4 bad ones.Just ruins everything.Retirement I say. >:O