-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tim Schafer defends Peter Molyneux.
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
Dirtyshubb
Member
Im sorry but your feeling doesnt really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
The interviewer was never rude to Peter, yes the opening question would have been a shock but it was explained and was never a direct accusation. Throughout the interview, Peter was given clear examples of what the questions were based on and was given every opportunity to answer them fully.
If you felt that Peter was shamed at all during the interview, I think that is more on him coming out so badly in it and not because of some poor interview technique. Basically, if you feel uncomfortable with the outcome, its because of Peters actions, either throughout his career or in attempting to squirm out of either answering questions or taking any responsibility for the multitude of things that have gone wrong over his career.
CecilRousso
Member
What article? Do you have a link?
I haven't read it yet (bookmarked for later) but I think this is the article he's referring to.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/15/the-lesson-of-peter-molyneux/
Woo-Fu
Banned
He's the studio head, the buck stops there. He's also the one who did the damage control interviews.
CecilRousso
Member
Of course he has a responsibility, but people often seem to mix up different responsibilities when talking about the game, like when TotalBiscuit tried to match Bobby Koticks quotes about him with to explain what happened with Spacebase, even though he two completely different roles in those cases. And just in this thread you see people trying to do the same thing.
Jacksinthe
Banned
He compared Tim to Peter using a game delay. I stated what Peter did and said it is exactly the same level of "bad" as the delay he mentioned. I said fucking people over, using Molyneux's behavior, lying, etc is exactly the same. It was sarcasm. How can anyone not tell?
CecilRousso
Member
Fiasco? One hour and half game? Dude, what?
ScepticMatt
Member
Associating with peter molyneux ... not the best PR strategy
Uncle Rupee
Banned
I would honestly like to hear Schafer's take on the Project Milo fiasco. That seemed like it was straight up put together on Microsoft's behalf as a promo for Kinect and it was 100% false advertising.
Jacksinthe
Banned
No you don't just donate. If you are told you will get X in exchange for Y then that is called trade. You are just doing it on the promise of X.
Also, before media traveled so quickly, games were what they were. When a game shipped, that's when people found out about it. You weren't being taken for a ride through the development process. You only got the end result without a PR team massaging you.
No, we do not see this behavior all the time. Most of it is kept behind closed doors because it does not concern us. But when it is a Kickstarter, or we are being directly engaged with during the iterative process, THEN it becomes about us and concerns us.
The problem is that too many consumers look at these devs like rock stars. "But my chosen favorite person can never do any wrong! He says he is committed so I believe him!". Its like politics. BOTH sides say batshit crazy things but ther bases think their shit does not smell. Its preposterous. People get taken for a ride and you say its par for the course. No. Not like what people like Molyneux did and STILL do.
Broder Salsa
Banned
It wasn't.
CecilRousso
Member
If you played it through in 1,5h, you're certainly one of the fastest to beat it. Around 3h or a bit more is the most common response you see about it. I didn't rush through it, and got just over 4h out of Act 1 according to Steam. Even if I was a bit slow, I have a hard time imagining how to play it to beat it in 1,5h unless I would skip dialogues and cutscenes.
And as for needing more money, it was deliberate choice they made, based on evaluation after they had built the first vertical slice/section of the game, where they could either have cut in the script, or as they choosed, use their own money. You can have opinions about that choice, but fiasco is a weird choice of words.
thewhitehawk
Member
People mismanage budgets sometimes and that was plainly explained in the documentary series, should you have happened to see it. Now, I'm not saying that understanding the issue solves the problem, it doesn't. But things aren't as transparent or as plain as "they took our money and ran away with it and couldn't even deliver a finished product". That's not what happened.
We need to get out of this mindset that developers are either awesome or terrible scum because more often than not the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't like the fact that Molyneux, Shafer and Warren Spector can miss deadlines, hype their games with seemingly false claims and fail to meet expectations, and mismanaged their projects but I wouldn't trade any of their creative abilities for another semi-open world game where you climb a tower to unlock more missions.
I think we grossly undermine how important it is to have creative people with rich personalities and coloured ideas. If the fact that in the last console generation a lot of AAA games became a grey sludge of sameness, where most games were grey brown or mix of both, where most shooters became cover ones, where most action games gained a level up, where most open world games had areas with unlockables and collectibles and your progression through them followed the same pattern and rhythm in every single game, just with differing combat mechanics or where traversal and platforming became exercises of "pointing your character in the right direction" rather than something that required exploration or some type of skill, or games when all the "coolest shit" that happened in the game, happened because you followed a button press at the proper time and were left completely disconnected from what was going on, where in most of them you followed a large corridor, with an occasional branch rather than sprawling and complex levels with verticality and nuance, where survival horror games became action games.
These developers aren't "Gods" I don't idolatre them as someone else suggested in this thread, but if from a broad perspective you don't understand the value of having them, or people like them, in this industry, then you're part of a large segment of game fans that I don't share any empathy with. You can argue that their latest games were disappointing in some way, but I don't think you can argue that most if not all of their games were immensely more creative than the great majority of other products in the market.
I'll take a creative liar over a morally bankrupt rich corporation any day of the week, and its really sad for me to see that most people prefer to defend the latter.
Journey
Banned
Not defending the guy, but if I collected a timeline of anyone, I can make anyone look like a sociopath, psychopath, moron, etc.
thewhitehawk
Member
We're not living in an age where code has to be locked to a physical piece of hardware and that brought both many good things and many bad things. It's a shame that a lot of developers and publishers take advantage of that to released unfinished products but if you don't like the attitude of releasing a game in a broken state and then worrying about fixing it, perhaps, just don't buy a game early.
How many publishers/developers can you really count on to have a solid quality game at launch? Japan Studio has been pretty good... From Software has been pretty good with their Souls games, not as much with Armored Core, Nintendo is a safe bet but there aren't really many more that come to my head.
Unless you really really want to support a developer, or they have a really solid track record and you want to play their game as soon as possible the most sensible thing to do, more often than not, is to not purchase a game at launch.
But honestly, regarding the issues you had with DF's games, I played Brutal Legend on PS3, bought it at launch and I had no issues at all, and I played Costume Quest and its first DLC and also had no issues with it. I'm not saying that they are flawless games and don't have bugs but you might have had an unlucky string of events that led to that feeling because that's not the experience I've had with all of Double Fine's games I've tried.
We live in a world were people pretend Fable 1 wasn't a good game? I mean I wasn't involved in any of the pre-release hype but what I played I really enjoyed.
I mean, obviously Molyneux should know by this point not to oversell every fucking project and take a deep look at himself. He has been behind some of the most creative games ever released, he should take a break or something, I'm sure he still has "it" somewhere.
I mean, obviously Molyneux should know by this point not to oversell every fucking project and take a deep look at himself. He has been behind some of the most creative games ever released, he should take a break or something, I'm sure he still has "it" somewhere.
Journey
Banned
Tim.
So you're saying that she's Tim and the community criticizing is Jim Carry?
BrassDragon
Member
I've been hearing Schafer's argument a lot: if only we knew how the sausage is made, if only we'd understand the pitfalls of game development, we'd be so much more understanding of developers not delivering on their promises.
Let me be blunt: I don't give a damn. I'm your audience, not your parents. I don't care about effort. I care about the performance. The play is the thing.
If you sell a vision, if you take money based on the promise of realising that vision, if you are specific and detailed about what you're making, the end product is the only thing that counts.
In the words of the great Jackie Chan:
"Whatever you do, do the best you can. Because the film live forever. No because you get a raining or because you don't have time... would you go to every theater to tell the audience? No! The audience in the theater go 'good movie', 'bad movie', that's all!"
Let me be blunt: I don't give a damn. I'm your audience, not your parents. I don't care about effort. I care about the performance. The play is the thing.
If you sell a vision, if you take money based on the promise of realising that vision, if you are specific and detailed about what you're making, the end product is the only thing that counts.
In the words of the great Jackie Chan:
"Whatever you do, do the best you can. Because the film live forever. No because you get a raining or because you don't have time... would you go to every theater to tell the audience? No! The audience in the theater go 'good movie', 'bad movie', that's all!"
Stephen Hawking. Go! Clock is ticking.
I haven't had time to pull together or even consider much of the info about this situation but these two tidbits are hugely enlightening.
That is bad, bad practice, and he does deserve at least one utterly brutal interview for it.
If you make people pay extra for a special service, you have to provide that service. How is there ever even a question about that. They should have budgeted and planned accurately for it and if it turned out they couldn't produce the goods, immediately refund the backers.
People who market the shit out of their own products despite failing to deliver on a consistent basis while also dodging responsibility might very well be either sociopaths, psychopaths or morons.
I don't understand why gaming is such a shithole when it comes to business responsibility. Not only do you have developers backing each others asses(their competitors), but you also have armies of fanboys doing the same thing.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Tim Schafer is the last person who should be defending Peter Molyneux. It bears repeating but Peter Molyneux did a lot of shade stuff that was way beyond what everyone does in field. At least I hope so. Then again, who knows? Maybe lying to get money for a project just comes with the job? Sega as a publisher probably has quite a bit to say about that. (See Gearbox)
I gave doublefine a pass for Broken age. Yes it was overly late and cost way more than it should to develop but it was as promised and then some. Hopefully act 2 will be great and everyone can forget about its development process.
I also give them a pass on Spacebase DF9. The game was way out of their area of expertise and yet they still delivered mostly what they said they would on Early Access but not as much as they or everyone else hoped.
However they are going down a dark path where even giving them passes, their games have been circling the quality drain for awhile now. Getting out front and defending Molyneux isn't doing them any favors.
I gave doublefine a pass for Broken age. Yes it was overly late and cost way more than it should to develop but it was as promised and then some. Hopefully act 2 will be great and everyone can forget about its development process.
I also give them a pass on Spacebase DF9. The game was way out of their area of expertise and yet they still delivered mostly what they said they would on Early Access but not as much as they or everyone else hoped.
However they are going down a dark path where even giving them passes, their games have been circling the quality drain for awhile now. Getting out front and defending Molyneux isn't doing them any favors.
borborygmus
Member
The RPS interview gave me douche chills - the same hard-hitting questions could've been asked in a better way. That said, the points against Molyneux were fair.
It seems certain defenders of Molyneux, including Tim Schafer, are just focusing on the rude tone of the RPS interview ("harsh, unfortunate and unfair") while ignoring the big picture and the pretty long history of unethical behavior from Molyneux (with, imho, Curiosity and the prize being the most transparently unethical thing he's done and what I think gave away his true colors).
In short, the RPS interviewer foolishly created an 'out' for Molyneux and his defenders, when it could've easily been a definitive "victory" in the case against Molyneux.
On a related note, I'm disappointed that Tim Schafer has become so defensive. He can't handle criticism, even when it's constructive, as seen in some of the DFA backer videos and even some of his forum posts. Here he's just using the Molyneux thing to lash out at the general public once more. Other developers that did Kickstarter projects received similar criticism but handled it much better than Tim did (not to mention that those projects were much more ambitious, and delivered on lower budgets than what DF got).
It seems certain defenders of Molyneux, including Tim Schafer, are just focusing on the rude tone of the RPS interview ("harsh, unfortunate and unfair") while ignoring the big picture and the pretty long history of unethical behavior from Molyneux (with, imho, Curiosity and the prize being the most transparently unethical thing he's done and what I think gave away his true colors).
In short, the RPS interviewer foolishly created an 'out' for Molyneux and his defenders, when it could've easily been a definitive "victory" in the case against Molyneux.
On a related note, I'm disappointed that Tim Schafer has become so defensive. He can't handle criticism, even when it's constructive, as seen in some of the DFA backer videos and even some of his forum posts. Here he's just using the Molyneux thing to lash out at the general public once more. Other developers that did Kickstarter projects received similar criticism but handled it much better than Tim did (not to mention that those projects were much more ambitious, and delivered on lower budgets than what DF got).
BrassDragon
Member
Yeah but only if they also ignore The Guardian article, the Eurogamer report and the Kelly editorial.... but no, let's all tone police the first sentence of a single interview, that'll teach them.
borborygmus
Member
And yet here we have Tim Schafer siding with him without addressing any of the actual criticism. I'd really like to hear what Tim has to say about actual criticisms of Molyneux, like the bullshit that was Curiosity.
edit: see this post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152682224&postcount=153
Tim's ignoring everything but the tone, and is setting up a strawman by saying that criticism of Molyneux simply amounts to development challenges which all developers face.
Misery loves company, but Tim chose some really bad company to associate himself with.
They pretended a video of something they couldn't do was a live recording. What is your definition of false advertising?
CecilRousso
Member
He doesn't adress them, because that wasn't the point with his update. He explicitly say that project owners like him and Molyneux does own responsibility for what happens, he points out that the tone against Molyneux, and the amount of abuse he gets is way over the line.
And as backer of Godus who thinks that Molyneux has had the wrong focus and screwed up the project, and has himself to blame for very much of that, I agree with Tim. There has to be limit to how much abuse he deserves, and everyone who adds to it after the shitstorm already has blown up should ask themselves if they really need to add to it.
Peter Molyneux: Made acclaimed games in the past, sells dreams, now uses Kickstarter to get money to make a game and before the game is released starts another (Kickstarter) project.
Tim Schafer: Made acclaimed games in the past, sells dreams, now uses Kickstarter to get money to make a game and before the game is released starts another (Kickstarter) project.
Them defending each other sounds about right.
Tim Schafer: Made acclaimed games in the past, sells dreams, now uses Kickstarter to get money to make a game and before the game is released starts another (Kickstarter) project.
Them defending each other sounds about right.
SuperDowns
Banned
YEA, let the controversy die down then let's all rush out after we forget this bullshit and kickstart his next project(s).
Think.
Jonnyboy117
Member
Schafer must be thinking, "There but for the grace of God go I."
No, there's nothing wrong with saying "We don't want to talk about that" or "No comment." There's no moral imperative to answer every question asked of you.
But using flowery and obtuse language to essentially trick people into thinking you've given them an answer (i.e. an "elaborate non-answer") when you've really said nothing of value or consequence, yeah I think that's dishonest.
I wouldn't call it lying, because that has a very specific definition (deliberately stating something you know to be false). Dishonest is a better descriptor.
For what it's worth, I think Molyneux has a history of lying and dishonesty.
Molyneux acts like having a successful Kickstarter was his right, he admitted that he set the amount far too low (in the RPS interview he states that the amount would not cover salaries for long) and promised things he knew he couldn't keep ("promise anything just to get those last 100k") just to make that kickstarter succeed because otherwise he wouldn't get any money from it. That just means he didn't deserve a successful kickstarter. What he could realistically offer for a realistic amount of money would not have been financed.
Ponzi or Madoff didn't get to laugh at their marks for signing contracts that couldn't reasonably be fulfilled, neither should Molyneux. He should be held fully accountable for making a false bid like that and yes I think that means he needs to be fined by a court.
I think it's similar with DF9, the work Double Fine promised would require the game to be absurdly successful in Early Access which means they must have been really massive idiots if they really thought they could pull it off (read: I don't think they actually believed that). IMO you don't deserve Early Access money if you are not reasonably certain that you can deliver a finished product regardless of the game's EA performance.
I don't have a beef with Broken Age though Schafer said the original plan was having it be like one room and only the re-scoping from the surplus money got it turned into a full scale adventure game. Imagine they had delivered their initial goal, don't you think people would've flipped their shit over that?
(pretty much the only thing Molyneux doesn't deserve is death threats)
Ponzi or Madoff didn't get to laugh at their marks for signing contracts that couldn't reasonably be fulfilled, neither should Molyneux. He should be held fully accountable for making a false bid like that and yes I think that means he needs to be fined by a court.
I think it's similar with DF9, the work Double Fine promised would require the game to be absurdly successful in Early Access which means they must have been really massive idiots if they really thought they could pull it off (read: I don't think they actually believed that). IMO you don't deserve Early Access money if you are not reasonably certain that you can deliver a finished product regardless of the game's EA performance.
I don't have a beef with Broken Age though Schafer said the original plan was having it be like one room and only the re-scoping from the surplus money got it turned into a full scale adventure game. Imagine they had delivered their initial goal, don't you think people would've flipped their shit over that?
(pretty much the only thing Molyneux doesn't deserve is death threats)
Coffee Dog
Banned
Big difference between those two:
Broken Age is everything promised and more. We were promised a small adventure game and we're now getting a full sized one.
Godus isnt. There's basically no chance it will ever be at the state promised by peter early on.
Yeah people really need to realize that he pretty much got going in a big way by scamming Amiga out of computers because they misunderstood who he was.
No.
Broken Age's original release date was meant to be Oct 2012.
They released Part 1 in Jan 2014, with Part 2 in TBA Q2 2015. You can not say they delivered what was promised when half of the game is still to come out. They also manage to produce about 10 other games in the process from announcement to hopeful Q2 release. On top of getting funding for another TBA Kickstarter title and two other Indiefund games.
While not Molyneux, he is close to being the last person who should be able to defend him.
I don't think you understand how games or promises are made.
uomoartificiale
Member
What?! It absolutely was. Molyneux gave a TED talk and assured that the milo and kate demo was real, calculated in realtime by an xbox360 and kinect. I would like to remember everyone that kate had milo/kinect scan a piece of paper in realtime and recognize its content.
You wanna say it was an interesting concept? I would agree, but they had the audacuty to say it was a real product.
CecilRousso
Member
When and where did DF say that?
A release date is not a promise btw, it's an estimate.
It was the Milo Project Natal demo that tipped me over the edge. Milo claimed to have voice recognition, natural language processing, facial recognition, mood recognition, AI and a bunch of other things when the system couldn't even map spastic flailing motions onto a few canned actions without getting it wrong.
faceless007
Member
Broken Age never had that release date. That date was set for the initially budgeted $300,000 game, which in all likelihood would have had a fraction of the team size and a small handful of locations and probably no voice acting. When they ended up getting so much more, they scrapped that and set their sights much higher, thus necessitating a longer development time.
We live in an era where internet did this wonderful thing with communication and suddenly we are able to look in the eye of the people we used to know from magazines. Now we have them right there in a video talking directly to us. The problem is that we are far too many, and what should be a friendly conversation turns into a scrutiny and a list of demands. No developer is inmune to this, we want a product, we want a 200% benefit from our money and we also want that with a smile in the face. We want too many things because we are too many mouths too feed, like babies we cry and cry asking for our personal attention, the full attention, and damn the developer if the game I am paying for is not worth my hard earned money by checking everything on my perfectly fine list of demands.
I used to believe this forum was a place where developers would connect with people in a very personal way. After reading some of the comments in the last days, now I am fucking sure this is probably the last place in internet where anyone would want to be.
I used to believe this forum was a place where developers would connect with people in a very personal way. After reading some of the comments in the last days, now I am fucking sure this is probably the last place in internet where anyone would want to be.
If you really think that then I don't know why you are still here or made this post. It is purposefully inflammatory to the point where I'm almost positive it is bait.
Not to mention the fact that what you are describing is very different than a Kickstarter that purposefully asks for less money than it requires knowing full well that the project will not deliver on the promises, which is exactly what happened with Goddess.