Peter Molyneux vs CliffyB

[CatmanStu]

During a recent E3 interview, Peter Molyneux made a veiled reference to the reputation he has for promising more than he can deliver.

My question is not which of these developers are right or better than the other, but taking into account that Gears of War 2 looks like it will be everything CliffyB (I hear he hates that name) says it will be and Molyneux's track record, which would you prefer; A developer sticking to what they know but doing it very well or a developer trying to expand the genre and only achieving a game that, though solid, leaves you wishing it was everything it was promised to be.

 

[Sethran]

A little bit of both.

While it's nice to, in the end, get what is promised it's equally nice to know that the developers are trying to expand their innovations, to come up with new and interesting ways to make a game and new and interesting ways for us to play the games.

I like Molyneux because, even if he does shoot off at the mouth more often than not, he's got brilliant ideas and is a talented video game creator. A bit overambitious, but we need people like that to push the technology and video games industry forward. If we're stuck with people who only do what they know then we're stuck in the same groove over and over again, never going forward but never going back.

Pushing the boundaries of imagination is what gaming is all about and in that aspect Molyneux outshines Bleszinski. He created the very first 'God game', Populace, the innovative Dungeon Master in which you play the villain rather than the good guys, and then Fable, a game which may have promised more than it could deliver but at the same time delivered an altogether satisfying experience. Especially for those of us who didn't read the original hype.

 

[sammyfreak]

Molyneux anyday, he has vision and that helps expand videogaming as a whole. Even if his games don't deliver.

 

[yourkie1921]

During a recent E3 interview, Peter Molyneux made a veiled reference to the reputation he has for promising more than he can deliver.

My question is not which of these developers are right or better than the other, but taking into account that Gears of War 2 looks like it will be everything CliffyB (I hear he hates that name) says it will be and Molyneux's track record, which would you prefer; A developer sticking to what they know but doing it very well or a developer trying to expand the genre and only achieving a game that, though solid, leaves you wishing it was everything it was promised to be.

As long as all the features Molyneux claimed to be there are actually F-n there and there are no absolutely huge flaws (and I mean bigger than "you're either mother Teressa or a baby eater") I'd prefer Fable 2 to Gears 2. I'm getting both anyway. And I prefer for both types of developers to exist. A will use B's ideas to make their game better. Hopefully A will come up with some new ideas to. Also, hopefully Fable2 will live up to the hype.

 

[geldonyetich]

If developers only stuck to what they knew, we'd still be playing text adventures. Molyneux is willing to risk success for new concepts. In this industry, that's fantastic.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Am I the one that liked the fable system? I mean seriously if you pussy's don't want to kill somebody in greed then your a saint. Don't complain the system works if you think about it.

 

[Alex_P]

Is Fable really breaking new ground in its genre? I mean, c'mon, a CRPG about ridiculous-good and ridiculous-evil, stuffed with D&D-fantasy tropes? You can't get much more formulaic than that. All of the "innovations" seem to be little details.

The original Gears of War actually messed around with the fundamental mechanics of a shooter. It's not just an Unreal knock-off. Incremental change, perhaps, but still some interesting new stuff. (There's not a lot to say about the setting and story, but I can forgive that more readily in an FPS than in an RPG.)

Which one is really "expanding the genre" here?

Now, sure, Bleszinski is now working on a sequel that promises to be very much like the first GoW while Molyneux is working on a sequel that promises to actually have the stuff that was supposed to be in the first one, but... So far, based on actual games that have been released, the GoW series has done a lot more to break new ground than the Fable series. The metaphorical lifetime achievement award that Molyneux deserves for his previous work doesn't change that.

-- Alex

 

[Sethran]

Really in the end it all depends on tastes because I could sit here and pick apart Gears of War until nothing was left until 'A game using the Unreal engine' which isn't really all that original, just as easily as someone could pick apart Fable until it was nothing more than a 'Fantasy RPG set in a Medieval English-style world'.

However, this isn't about the games themselves as much as it is the people behind them, Alex.

Saying Cliff Bleszinski is an innovative TPS designer is like saying Richard Garriott is an innovative MMO designer. They both put new things into their respective genres, but it's nothing that hasn't been seen before in other genres. Whereas Molyneux has, thus far, created the genre of God games. So really, comparing a relatively new designer to a relatively old designer isn't all that fair as Molyneux has had more time to come up with innovative games as he came in early in the industry's life whereas Bleszinski is a newcomer having started a little over a decade ago.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Really in the end it all depends on tastes because I could sit here and pick apart Gears of War until nothing was left until 'A game using the Unreal engine' which isn't really all that original, just as easily as someone could pick apart Fable until it was nothing more than a 'Fantasy RPG set in a Medieval English-style world'.

However, this isn't about the games themselves as much as it is the people behind them, Alex.

Saying Cliff Bleszinski is an innovative TPS designer is like saying Richard Garriott is an innovative MMO designer. They both put new things into their respective genres, but it's nothing that hasn't been seen before in other genres. Whereas Molyneux has, thus far, created the genre of God games. So really, comparing a relatively new designer to a relatively old designer isn't all that fair as Molyneux has had more time to come up with innovative games as he came in early in the industry's life whereas Bleszinski is a newcomer having started a little over a decade ago.

Nevermind, he began creating the strategy genre in 1990. And he worked as a simulation game designer before then.

 

[geldonyetich]

Sid Meier created the strategy genre in 1982 and he was just 25...

Not really. Civilization was his first big strategy game (unless you count Railroad Tycoon) and was based on popular strategy board game mechanics that had been around for decades. His 1982 game, Spitfire Ace [http://www.mobygames.com/game/spitfire-ace], was actually closer to an early flight simulator - Civilization came at 1991. He's a talented computer game designer, but not the creator of the strategy genre.

[Edited for clarity and detail.]

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Molyneux anyday, he has vision and that helps expand videogaming as a whole. Even if his games don't deliver.

true, Molyneux creates new genres of games

Cliff creates new ways to curb stomp people. oh, and he added a functional run and gun cover system.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Molyneux anyday, he has vision and that helps expand videogaming as a whole. Even if his games don't deliver.

true, Molyneux creates new genres of games

Cliff creates new ways to curb stomp people. oh, and he added a functional run and gun cover system.

You can't roadie run and gun though.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Sid Meier created the strategy genre in 1982 and he was just 25...

Not really. Civilization was basically a conversion of popular strategy board game mechanics that had been around for decades. To Sid Meier's credit, he did manage to design a good computer game conversion, and that was no small accomplishment. His 1982 game, Spitfire Ace [http://www.mobygames.com/game/spitfire-ace], was actually closer to an early flight simulator.

Edited it since I was a little quick to jump the gun.

 

[Sethran]

Sid Meier created the strategy genre in 1982 and he was just around the age of 28...

True.

However, there is a substantial difference in Strategy and God games.

Strategy games are games like Age of Empires or StarCraft, in which you are given control of a group of people and have to manage their materials, units, and activities in order to advance further into the game and accomplish the objectives.

God games are 'open world' games in which you, the player, take over the position of God in that you are able to modify the landscape to your desire, build and destroy whatever you wish, and sometimes accomplish goals. The Sims are a good example of god games, though the original God game made by Molyneux was Populus, in which you created the landscape yourself, plopped down a couple of buildings, and watched as the people you created ran about like ants fighting and enslaving one another.

And...

Again...

We're comparing Molyneux to Bleszinski. Not Sid Meier.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Molyneux anyday, he has vision and that helps expand videogaming as a whole. Even if his games don't deliver.

true, Molyneux creates new genres of games

Cliff creates new ways to curb stomp people. oh, and he added a functional run and gun cover system.

You can't roadie run and gun though.

ironically, i bet a roadie could run and shoot a gun at the same time

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Sid Meier created the strategy genre in 1982 and he was just around the age of 28...

True.

However, there is a substantial difference in Strategy and God games.

Strategy games are games like Age of Empires or StarCraft, in which you are given control of a group of people and have to manage their materials, units, and activities in order to advance further into the game and accomplish the objectives.

God games are 'open world' games in which you, the player, take over the position of God in that you are able to modify the landscape to your desire, build and destroy whatever you wish, and sometimes accomplish goals. The Sims are a good example of god games, though the original God game made by Molyneux was Populus, in which you created the landscape yourself, plopped down a couple of buildings, and watched as the people you created ran about like ants fighting and enslaving one another.

And...

Again...

We're comparing Molyneux to Bleszinski. Not Sid Meier.

But you brought up a point that because Bleszinski doesn't have as much experience as Molyneux that he cannot make good games which I call bollocks on by bringing up Sid.

 

[mjhhiv]

Is Fable really breaking new ground in its genre? I mean, c'mon, a CRPG about ridiculous-good and ridiculous-evil, stuffed with D&D-fantasy tropes? You can't get much more formulaic than that. All of the "innovations" seem to be little details.

The original Gears of War actually messed around with the fundamental mechanics of a shooter. It's not just an Unreal knock-off. Incremental change, perhaps, but still some interesting new stuff. (There's not a lot to say about the setting and story, but I can forgive that more readily in an FPS than in an RPG.)

Which one is really "expanding the genre" here?

Now, sure, Bleszinski is now working on a sequel that promises to be very much like the first GoW while Molyneux is working on a sequel that promises to actually have the stuff that was supposed to be in the first one, but... So far, based on actual games that have been released, the GoW series has done a lot more to break new ground than the Fable series. The metaphorical lifetime achievement award that Molyneux deserves for his previous work doesn't change that.

-- Alex

You honestly think Gears was innovative? Please, tell me what was so creative and new about it. It's not like we'd never seen a cover system before. I'm not saying Fable itself was all that innovative either, but the ideas behind it were. If Molyneaux got everything he said he would in Fable, it would have been innovative; same for Fable 2, if he gets everything he claims to be in Fable 2 actually in Fable 2, then it will be innovative.

 

[Aries_Split]

Molyneux anyday, he has vision and that helps expand videogaming as a whole. Even if his games don't deliver.

true, Molyneux creates new genres of games

Cliff creates new ways to curb stomp people. oh, and he added a functional run and gun cover system.

You can't roadie run and gun though.

ironically, i bet a roadie could run and shoot a gun at the same time

Most definitely.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Molyneux anyday, he has vision and that helps expand videogaming as a whole. Even if his games don't deliver.

true, Molyneux creates new genres of games

Cliff creates new ways to curb stomp people. oh, and he added a functional run and gun cover system.

You can't roadie run and gun though.

ironically, i bet a roadie could run and shoot a gun at the same time

Most definitely.

Is Fable really breaking new ground in its genre? I mean, c'mon, a CRPG about ridiculous-good and ridiculous-evil, stuffed with D&D-fantasy tropes? You can't get much more formulaic than that. All of the "innovations" seem to be little details.

The original Gears of War actually messed around with the fundamental mechanics of a shooter. It's not just an Unreal knock-off. Incremental change, perhaps, but still some interesting new stuff. (There's not a lot to say about the setting and story, but I can forgive that more readily in an FPS than in an RPG.)

Which one is really "expanding the genre" here?

Now, sure, Bleszinski is now working on a sequel that promises to be very much like the first GoW while Molyneux is working on a sequel that promises to actually have the stuff that was supposed to be in the first one, but... So far, based on actual games that have been released, the GoW series has done a lot more to break new ground than the Fable series. The metaphorical lifetime achievement award that Molyneux deserves for his previous work doesn't change that.

-- Alex

You honestly think Gears was innovative? Please, tell me what was so creative and new about it. It's not like we'd never seen a cover system before. I'm not saying Fable itself was all that innovative either, but the ideas behind it were. If Molyneaux got everything he said he would in Fable, it would have been innovative; same for Fable 2, if he gets everything he claims to be in Fable 2 actually in Fable 2, then it will be innovative.

He has had about half a year to polish the game so even if he didn't it would be a well polished game instead of say.. AiTD5?

 

[Sethran]

But you brought up a point that because Bleszinski doesn't have as much experience as Molyneux that he cannot make good games which I call bollocks on by bringing up Sid.

Please, point and show me where I said that because Bleszinski doesn't have as much experience I said he can't make good games.

Please, point.

No, had you bothered to read rather than immediately jumping on the defensive you would have seen that I said it isn't fair to compare the two of them as game designers. I like Gears of War, I still play it and I've been replaying it in anticipation for Gears of War 2. That being said, it isn't the most innovative of games and Bleszinski isn't the most innovative of game designers. Innovation doesn't equate to good. Some innovation can be bad, such as using a Wiimote for Mario platforming. In addition to that, a lack of innovation can be just as entertaining, it's just not something we haven't seen before. Gears of War is a good game, but with the exception of the chainsaw bayonet we've seen just about everything in it before.

Bleszinski also hasn't had a whole lot of time to make great innovations. He's getting his bearings with Gears of War and after that I believe he'll start on some truly creative works. However until that time begins, Molyneux will always compare favorably to Bleszinski in the innovative developer department because it's hard to get more innovative than creating a genre that never before existed.