Poll: Peter Molyneux, Idiot or Liar?

[Valentine82]

A better question:

Valentine82: An idiot, or a sheep?

Hey now, let's not get insulting. I don't agree with her either, but insults are not a good way to make a point.

Well I was mostly saying it in an ironic sense, and a "well how about if someone else does it to you, now how do you feel?" kind of way. S/he who is without sin, cast the first stone. And I think I made my point quite well.

I think Kenjitsuka makes the differences clear enough.

Over four pages already, but I think I can still add something. I live in the Netherlands, you see, and we have a big magazine on games here who at the production of Fable 1 managed to get an exclusive deal; every month Molyneux would tell us in the magazine about Fable...

Some of the things he PROMISED would be in the final game where stuff like the trees growing in real time. As you know, this was never implemented. When the magazine later asked what the deal was with the trees he eventually said: "When I said it, it was intended to be in there. Later it turned out the xbox needed 80% of all processing power just to keep the tree growth computed. So we scrapped it." Then, logically, the magazine asked why he did not say anything about this and half a dozen other very unique and awesome ideas where all very much absent.

PM said: "It was intended to be in there when I said so."...

I think the point Valentine82 wanted to make was just this: PM makes a claim, about something that WILL BE IN THE GAME. In this very case that where his words. In the following year, he gave 12 half page updates on Fable's development, and never said a word about the tree growth being scrapped, but three months after it was RELEASED he said "Oh, yeah, we scrapped it. Sorry you bought the game and expected it to be in there.".

Another point is that Molyneux indeed must look through a four inch thick pair of pink shades making the world seem awesome and colourfull and full of promise. If you're a jaded misantrope like myself and the world seems painted black (Rolling Stones pun there, youngsters!) it would seem PM lied about stuff being "awesomely this, and smashingly that!".

Like Yathzee said in his Fable 2 review: "That might have been a bit charictaristically over optimistic, Peter!". It's PM's nature.

But still, Fable 1, Black and White and Fable 2 where all quite dissapointing to me. More like tech demo's than balanced fun games!

Thank you.

 

[Valentine82]

Uh. I have the box right here. It doesn't say anything about the number of lands or the number of tribes.

Again I said

listed on the back of some of the retail boxes

The key word is in bold. Anyway you may still like the game, it has some major failings but it's still worth installing and playing. The thing is, PM didn't tell us the truth about Black and White 2 until after it was released. It's easy to blame EA I know, but they were just going by what PM himself had told them. As former Vice President of Electronic Arts I'm sure PM understands that.

 

[Valentine82]

The man is a businessman. He knows what sells and he knows how to sell it. Sometimes product embellishment is required to get the message across rapidly and to generate hype.

Peter says X will be true. X turns out to be Untrue. Peter keeps the fact that X is untrue to himself until three months after his product is released. That is dishonest. So if you're saying he's a buisness man and it's to be expected, well that's fantastic, he's still dishonest and we should be able to call him on it.

So he may be a one-tick-pony with his exaggerations but he has and still can deliver a solid gaming experience.

And whether or not the games are/were worth playing is irrelevant to the issue of Peter Molyneux's honesty.

Fable II for example was not too off the beat he spoke of, the trailers looked different, yes, but what he said was going to be in the game...was in the game.

The same was not true of Fable 1 or Black and White 2, and I seem to recall a list of claims he made about Fable 2 that turned out to be untrue being on the Lionhead Forums.

You could choose to look at it as product dishonesty provided that one can prove he intentionally lies to his customers.

Peter lies in such a way that no one can prove intent. He can claim that he originally intended X Y or Z but X and Y were scrapped. Peter Molyneux still chooses to be dishonest for us about X and Y, because he still keeps the truth from us.

As stated by another poster, in Fable Peter Molyneux told us that the trees would grow, he didn't say he wanted them to grow or that they might grow he said that they would grow, and that's only one of the false claims he made. He not only set a false expectation he made a false claim and regardless of his original intent he still later realized that the claim was false and for a year kept the truth to himself until after three months after the game was released, that is clearly dishonest. Peter Molyneux pulled a classic Bait and Switch but there's no way to prove intent.

To Borrow a Quote.
"Peter Molyneux - Because if you lie like a lawyer no one can call you on it."

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

*giant snip*

I readily admit that I am not familiar with the inner workings of Lionhead Studios or any of Peter Molyneux's business strategies BUT if you have hard evidence to prove that "Peter keeps the fact that X is untrue to himself until three months after his product is released then you might have some solid ground in proving that his is a liar/a dishonest merchant of darkness.

Right now though all we have to go on is speculation and observation. And I for one see no reason to brandish out the witch-hunt torches because he can't keep his trap shut once in a while. There clearly is some deal of ambiguity with the things he says, I admit. For instance the tree thing you mentioned. Sure, I saw no signs of growing trees but they did change colour as the seasons changed (i.e-after the Spire mission). That could be seen as part of the trees interaction with the environment and sure, it may not be exactly what he said but it isn't a blatant lie either; the trees 'evolved' in a way.

To be quite frank, I don't care about what Peter says or does. I barely listen to his sermons anyway and besides growing trees are hardly a major gameplay element, so I honestly don't care that they grew or not let alone moved for the wind.

Oh and by the way:

what exactly do you mean by "And whether or not the games are/were worth playing is irrelevant to the issue of Peter Molyneux's honesty. Then what exactly is the point of this thread you created?. How else does the man influence our lives if not through the games he produces?. Why would you care if a man is dishonest with you and/or lying to you if you are never going to purchase his products, products that are his only way of affecting the world in which you live in?.

The fact of the matter is this, despite the claims he has made in his previous games he has gotten people to play them. But more importantly he has gotten us to play his future titles despite the teachings of history. It seems as far as dishonesty goes, we are the ones that keep coming back for more of his tall tales, all you have to do is look at the promotional hype for Fable 3 and you know he has people already eating out of his hand.
All things considered, do you think people are going to boycott his latest product because of false claims made in Fable 1, B&W2, Fable 2?...I doubt it.Peter Molyneux's honesty/dishonesty is a part and parcel of his games, the only catch is as long as his claims aren't obtrusive and as long as he doesn't detach the player from a good gaming experience we, somehow manage to overlook his sins and await for yet another title from him.

In the end, (and this is based on pure observation), it doesn't matter if he is lying to us or not. He's just tapped into the nervous system of gamers and as long as he keeps making games that are fun to play, people won't really mind that the trees didn't grow with time or that you couldn't change the colour of the wolf's fur. As I said before, he's just a good businessman, and with no way of saying for certain that he is a lying with intent and/or a dishonest game designer, people will continue to fund his games and he will continue to make more...with more claims of wonder.


Besides, the average consumer is a sucker. A sucker for listening to what Peter Molyneux has to say in the first place and for further funding his claims by purchasing his products, despite knowing that it will be riddled with false claims. It's your own goddamned fault for not knowing any better by now. I have very little sympathy for people who complain about been lied to after buying a Peter Molyneux product, especially if this is not their first encounter with the man or his studio. People should be aware by now at least, that they have two choices when facing a Peter Molyneux game: buy it with their own informed choice or leave it.

 

[Josdeb]

I think it's more of a case of him overestimating what is possible in a videogame. Its almost a little naive in my mind.

 

[Spicy meatball]

Snippety snip snip

Well said!. I am always surprised why the consumer doesn't instinctively switch into a more skeptic mode when Peter is concerend. If you believe in him less then the less chance of getting disappointed but I guess that's beyond what this topic is discussing. I don't believe him to be a liar with an intention to deceive but he has produced games that do not match his original claims and that is strangely suspicious. At the very least I am surprised that no one has sued him or his company for consumer deception or something.

 

[Valentine82]

*Giant Snip*

Like I said, whether or not PM technically outright lies he's still dihonest. Also, I made clear from the very start that this thread was about PETER MOLYNEUX and his and dishonesty, not about the quality of the games he produced.

Black and White 2 for example, good game or bad game, it did not have 11 lands or 7 tribes like PM said it would. PM never acknowledged the fact that Black and White 2 would have fewer lands and fewer tribes until AFTER Black and White 2 was released. That is dishonest. You can still like his games and recognize that the man was dishonest. He didn't just embellish he said something that was untrue and sold a product under false pretenses.

Why shouldn't we be able to call him out and criticize such dishonesty? Is it because if you lie like a lawyer no one can call you on it? Peter Molyneux lies in such a way that he can never be held legally accountable because you can never actually prove intent without an extremely powerful circumstantial case or a prior recorded statement of intent. That doesn't make his dishonesty acceptable, it just makes it legal, people should still be able to criticize him for it.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Of course people can, and do criticize him, there was never any question about that. To me this is never a question about "Should we criticize PM?" but rather "What use is it criticizing PM?"...other than exercising basic human rights i.e- our right to complain about something.

Snippety snip snip

Well said!. I am always surprised why the consumer doesn't instinctively switch into a more skeptic mode when Peter is concerend. If you believe in him less then the less chance of getting disappointed but I guess that's beyond what this topic is discussing. I don't believe him to be a liar with an intention to deceive but he has produced games that do not match his original claims and that is strangely suspicious. At the very least I am surprised that no one has sued him or his company for consumer deception or something.

Because in either case there is no demonstrable fault outside normal parameters (for example you can't sue Ford because they don't make cars that run absolutely 100% reliable). People just didn't like the game, then assumed that their expectations are what define the "legal" requirements.

This can be dropped into just about every other entertainment medium. You didn't like that movie you just saw? It was advertised as a thriller, but it was boring? Bad acting and transparently obvious special effects? And the price is more then you used to pay?

Yet you don't see people suing the movie studio because they are selling a "faulty" product now do you?

It's entertainment, a luxury. It does not affect your safety, it is not a required part of your life.

 

[Valentine82]

People just didn't like the game, then assumed that their expectations are what define the "legal" requirements.

This shows that you do not comprehend the argument.

First, and this was stated in my first post, whether you liked a game or not is utterly irrelevant to whether or not Peter Molyneux was dishonest.

Second I never said he should be sued, I said he was dishonest. The way he's dishonest prevents him from being held legally accountable in a court of law, because there's no way to prove intent.

In any event you're comparing two different things, on the one hand you have exaggeration of what is true, or statements that depend on subjective experience, on the other hand you have untrue statements of fact.

 

[THEMILKMAN]

He's not an idiot or a liar. He's just excessively enthusiastic about Lionhead's games.

 

[Merteg]

I'd say Mr. Molyneux is overly ambitious and optimistic.

It happens to the best of us at times.

 

[Valentine82]

He's not an idiot or a liar. He's just excessively enthusiastic about Lionhead's games.

That is the excuse that people give when giving him a free pass or unaware of his claims.

I'd say Mr. Molyneux is overly ambitious and optimistic.

It happens to the best of us at times.

Except when Peter Molyneux makes a statement that later turns out to be untrue, and that statement is presented as a matter of fact, and Peter Molyneux chooses not to reveal the truth, that is dishonest.

 

[Inco]

Where are the options for "neither" and "enthusiastic visionary"?

Yes.. i feel he is just too enthusiastic of making a brilliant and immersive game and bringing it to the populace too quickly that he forgets to have people play test it and justify his claims.

If he did a Valve or Blizzard, i think he would come up with a great game.

 

[Valentine82]

Where are the options for "neither" and "enthusiastic visionary"?

Yes.. i feel he is just too enthusiastic of making a brilliant and immersive game and bringing it to the populace too quickly that he forgets to have people play test it and justify his claims.

If he did a Valve or Blizzard, i think he would come up with a great game.

So in other words, he's clueless as to what's going on with his product? He doesn't mean to lie, he states things as fact that later turn out to be untrue but he thinks that they're true when he says them and he just doesn't keep track of his claims?

 

[Inco]

Where are the options for "neither" and "enthusiastic visionary"?

Yes.. i feel he is just too enthusiastic of making a brilliant and immersive game and bringing it to the populace too quickly that he forgets to have people play test it and justify his claims.

If he did a Valve or Blizzard, i think he would come up with a great game.

So in other words, he's clueless as to what's going on with his product? He doesn't mean to lie, he states things as fact that later turn out to be untrue, and he just doesn't keep track of his claims meaning?

He has ideas, they are good and (sometimes) unique. Unfortuantely he opens his mouth and announces the ideas before it can be properly implemented. People get high expectations. Deadlines approach and rather than delay the game to do the ideas right, he hastily finishes the game with those ideas incorrectly placed and sends it off. Then people play the game and get disappointed at the result.

An Example (from Fable 2) of this is the 'world developing around you' thing. Great concept, too bad it felt more like 'decision A makes this area become divine while decision B makes it slums' Its not development (as that is gradual and you should see the shift of the world towards this) this is just instant change, you dont see it change.

Another is the plot, started off decent (not A or B material, maybe C) then it seemed as though the last half of the game was done by some one who has taken too many shots to the head (drink or ball, your choice) The 'dream' world was a good thing, but it was completely out of place.

 

[Wakefield]

Oh for... Leave the man alone, I have this theory that people only hate him because its cool to hate him.

He makes good games, sure they're not fully what he envisions them to be, but at least he has vision. He could very well churn out another space marine shooter and fly under the radar but at least he's aiming to try new things.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

People just didn't like the game, then assumed that their expectations are what define the "legal" requirements.

This shows that you do not comprehend the argument.

First, and this was stated in my first post, whether you liked a game or not is utterly irrelevant to whether or not Peter Molyneux was dishonest.

Second I never said he should be sued, I said he was dishonest. The way he's dishonest prevents him from being held legally accountable in a court of law, because there's no way to prove intent.

In any event you're comparing two different things, on the one hand you have exaggeration of what is true, or statements that depend on subjective experience, on the other hand you have untrue statements of fact.

What you fail to comprehend is that:

a) When I mention the sueing fact I was addressing another poster's comment and not your own. Therefore whatever point you were trying to make is moot.

b) When you said, "And whether or not the games are/were worth playing is irrelevant to the issue of Peter Molyneux's honesty" I agreed with you partially. However, nothing so far vaidates the claim of dishonesty. All of his claims are either present in some altered/scaled down version in his final products or he just failed to announce an update stating that a certain idea(s) were scrapped. There is nothing inherently dishonest about that.

You could easily claim that he is incompetent or absent minded rather than dishonest and/or a liar.

I also further added my point that even if he is proven dishonest, the mere fact that he makes games that are enjoable to many people (by numbers of sequels purchased) means that gamers just won't care eitherway (provided that his dishonesty stays withing acceptable parameters). Or, they have already learnt to tune him out when he starts on a product rant, thereby eleminating his promises and claims from the equation.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

To call the man an idiot is to lie yourself - say what you want about his promises, he is clearly a pretty sharp guy. I also don't believe one can, in truth, call him a liar. Yes, he has said things that have turned out to be false, but then I don't have any reason to think that he does not believe the things he says. What a developer promises from a game often varies significantly from what is delivered - that's one of the many downsides of not having infinite time and resources to produce a title.

 

[Zand88]

He's a Lidiot. Or an Eyer.