Tags: Games   Rants


The best escape for me is a good computer role-playing game, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned before. So I’m interested in following the newest RPGs. What are they doing that’s new? What’s the story? What kind of character can I play? How does it evolve the RPG genre? Game developers always claim that they will deliver awesome games that will blow your frikkin’ mind and change gaming forever LOL!!1

The king of hype is Peter Molyneux, who for some reason has gotten into the RPG market. I wrote a review of his first RPG, Fable, giving it a forgiving 4 out of 5. It was a fun enough game, but I would hardly say it had many aspects of an RPG. It was more of an action arcade button-masher. Nevertheless, it was good times.

Now Molyneux is on the war path again, promoting Fable 2. I read an interview he did at Kikizo, where I found this quote which raised my eyebrows and inspired me to sharpen my knives:

”Stupidly, the ambition on this thing is I want you to measure this against any fighting game... It's amazing for a role playing game, because most role playing games are shit! Oblivion was a great game, but the combat was rubbish; we all talked about it being rubbish."

Yes, he really does talk like a ten year old boy comparing Transformers with Gobots. Most role-playing games are shit? You can’t say something that offensive without giving reasons. Oblivion’s combat was “rubbish”? His proof is this: “we all talked about it being rubbish.” Imagine trying to work for someone who presents ideas in such an immature way.


I’ll try to piece his argument together since he’s not capable. What he seems to be saying is that Oblivion’s combat was bad because it wasn’t comparable to fighting games. By fighting games, I think he means games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. I guess it’s hard to argue with him on this idiotic comparison. Oblivion sure was a terrible fighting game. And I’m glad it was! Imagine buying an RPG only to find that it’s a fighting game!

Ok, that’s probably a straw man argument. I don’t know what Molyneux was trying to say. The only clear message he sends is this: “most role-playing games are shit.”

I read the article further to find out more about his vision for the future of RPGs. He describes the target audience for Fable 2 like this:

"I am certainly suggesting that a good proportion of those people can't even control a character, and get stuck, and we're spending a lot of time getting that right. I could say draw your sword and they wouldn't even have a clue what we're talking about."

What the...?!

His target audience for this fantasy-themed RPG are people who don’t know what a sword is? They don’t know what a sword is? Or they don’t know what it means to “draw a sword”? Are there a lot of people who have never heard of a sword who are buying video games? Weren’t the Lord of the Rings movies extremely popular? Didn’t they involve a lot of swords, and drawing of swords? Even if you didn’t see the movie, you must have seen posters of the movies. And there were these shiny, metal, pointy things. If you had never seen them before, maybe you would ask someone, “Hey, what are those shiny, pointy, sharp-looking things in that picture?” “Oh, that’s a sword, you moron.”

Ok, maybe that’s another straw man argument. I don’t think so, but it’s inconceivable that Molyneux is targeting such a rare type of person for Fable 2. Let’s look at the first statement about the target audience. How many people who play video games don’t know what it means to control a character? Ever since Pong, Pac-Man, and Space Invaders, you have had to control a character on the screen. If the Pong paddles had to sit still, unmoving, completely locked in place, I don’t think it would have been quite as popular. If you couldn’t understand the concept of controlling the paddles, your interest in video games was probably nil.

Moving a character in games these days now includes more than one dimension. Now you must move your character forward, backward, left, and right. Molyneux must have an extremely low opinion of people if he doesn’t think we understand the concept of moving in two dimensions.

Molyneux is not God’s gift to games. In my opinion, he hasn’t produced a single decent game since the disappointing Dungeon Keeper games (1997). Black & White was an atrocious, infuriating game. Controlling the giant animals was a pointless exercise in frustration, adding nothing strategic to the gameplay. I remember showing Black & White to a friend, and he asked me why I played the game if it made me so angry. That was the last time I played it.

Here’s another quote that proves Molyneux has gone off the deep end:

”If I am using the attack button it means I want to do something aggressive to the nearest target!”

Innovation! The RPG Fighting Game Action Arcade Button Masher genre will never be the same!

Just one more quote because it’s fun:

”Remember, this is a role playing game: all the different weapons have different music sounds and give a very individual feel to the combat.”

That is a completely insane statement! Why do all weapons have different music sounds (whatever that means) and what does that have to do with role-playing games?? Does a dagger sound like a kazoo playing Yankee Doodle Dandy? Does a bow sound like bagpipes? What do I need to do to unlock the 1812 Overture music sound weapon?

This interview is almost as infuriating as Black & White!

My only hope is that other role-playing game designers have read Molyneux’s damning opinion of their work, that Molyneux alienates himself from his own industry, and that Fable 2 has no impact at all on my favorite game genre, because I don’t see RPGs evolving into fighting game musical weapon adventures. Go talk crazy about some other genre.