His agenda was to make Peter look bad and rub his nose in it. He had no interest in uncovering some hidden truth. Thinking otherwise is more delusional than one of Peter's claims.
-
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.
The Trial Of Peter Molyneux by RockPaperShotgun
- Thread starter Pie and Beans
- Start date
His agenda was to make Peter look bad and rub his nose in it. He had no interest in uncovering some hidden truth. Thinking otherwise is more delusional than one of Peter's claims.
tringworldso
Member
If you read the entire interview then you know that is not the case.
Now you're writing fan fiction to justify your ridiculous position? kk
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I'm defending him somewhat, but I certainly don't buy broken Activision/EA games, I just support ambition and creativity.
For example, those broken games you refer to, are not creatively driven projects, and usually lack any resemblance to creative ambition.
I'm more drawn to things like Fable, Star Citizen, GTA. Or things outside of games like Pink Floyd (concept albums), the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and sending satellites into orbit to enable worldwide internet and hopefully fund the terraforming of mars.
Will mars ever get terraformed? hell if I know, but I love the dream, and the fact someone is actively trying to do it, or that the fact that there are scientists out there actively trying to understand quantum physics. I'll support that kind of ambition any day. Hence why I will probably always play a Molyneaux game. I'm good at keeping my expectations in check, if something sounds insane, I don't expect the impossible. All I care about is whether the game is actually good, not whether so and so feature was cut, even if it's disappointing.
He's a hardened veteran of the industry, you think he can't take a bunch of hard questions? If anything it's him who's bullying the backers.
No matter how much passion he has, that doesn't mean he can dupe his fans and get away with it.
Here we go, another Jason Schreier post I agree with. It's kind of funny how I've come from vehemently disagreeing with you over that one Dragon's Crown article (I was almost sure I would just ignore your articles in the future) to the point that when I think about games journalism (however nebulous that term can be) your name is one of the first that comes to mind.
Yes, the interview was confrontational and yes, he could have gone for a different opening questions but overall I'm glad this interview exists. I certainly do not want every interview to be like this but I often times ignore a lot of them since all they're good for are mostly one or two tidbits of information about the game the interview is about. They besically only have value until release. I think it's tough to go beyond that when it comes to games and people are still trying to figure out how to do it but I hope that we'll get there.
Great rebuttal. You're clearly a gifted mind who's capable of focusing, with a laser beam precision, all your cognitive ability into solving problems most of us don't have to think about.
StormyTheRabbit
Member
Wonderful interview. Completely well done and actually tried holding a developer accountable for his actions. Didn't come off as a snobby fanboy or anything, simply asked direct-to the point questions and simply quoted the mans own statements when they didn't line up.
People who think this is bullying clearly don't ever actually read interviews outside of the video game field.
This was totally professional, maybe minus a few points where the interviewer laughed, but I would almost guess he did that to try to ease the tension.
Peter came off as being in a very weird rambling state. Clearly the man is putting all of his effort into this title. It was just time he actually answered the questions everyone, his backers included, wanted to know.
People who think this is bullying clearly don't ever actually read interviews outside of the video game field.
This was totally professional, maybe minus a few points where the interviewer laughed, but I would almost guess he did that to try to ease the tension.
Peter came off as being in a very weird rambling state. Clearly the man is putting all of his effort into this title. It was just time he actually answered the questions everyone, his backers included, wanted to know.
I am so tired of hearing the phrases bullying, toxic, yada yada yada, especially when its wrong. Bullying is picking on someone smaller, weaker, unable to defend themselves, etc. Aggressively asking a liar questions about being a liar is not bullying.
As for having passion or making good games, power to him, but that does not give him the right to lie, deceive, trick, whatever. Whether you call it keeping journalists up at night or lying, ultimately its the consumer who gets hurt by the misspeaks.
I hope that website starts broadening their focus to include console games. That is exactly the kind of gaming journalism I am looking for - consumers first. So sick of the junior PR crap almost (not all) everyone else puts out.
Prove to know you aren't talking out of your ass. Please link these supposed interviews that are similar to this that exist outside of the gaming industry. I'll wait for your Fox News links.
Comfort Jones
Banned
He's a hardened veteran of the industry, you think he can't take a bunch of hard questions? If anything it's him who's bullying the backers.
No matter how much passion he has, that doesn't mean he can dupe his fans and get away with it.
Honestly as someone working to be an indie dev if I fucked up with people's expectations as much as he has REPEATEDLY just once I'd feel terrible. I wouldn't call people saying mean things to me "bullies". Being mean to people who have lied to you and screwed with you isn't bullying ffs.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
That's a great example, and exactly.
My experience with designers, and making excellent products is basically...don't be afraid to throw out the kittens, because you still have the momma cat.
To create something truly great, consistent, whole, you need to constantly be throwing out ideas, finished work, revising. This is no doubt why so many games have terrible narrative structure, because whole segments of the game just got tossed out, in order to ensure the gameplay was solid, or because it would allow them to stay within a rigid timeline.
write me one about bush and WMDs. you can see it however you want to.
That post says you either are on Molyneux's side (and, as a game developer, you want to "defend the tribe") or you are on John Walker's side for doing an interview questioning about promises not delivered.
I think none of the game developers I know (including me) are defending Molyneux for not delivering promises. They all know he messed up and should be accounted for that. The debate is about the tone of the interview. It could have gotten better results without being so offensive at the start.
I don't think it would have been less effective. The questions about Molyneux's work, how many people are working on Godus, what is the state of the game and so on could have been asked without mentioning a possible mental illness.
Yes, but, again, asking if you are a liar is entirely different than asking if you are a pathological liar. If one is doing the former, than they are purposely deceiving their audience, lying willingly. If they are the second option, then they have no control over it. It is serious and should be treated if diagnosed, but it is not the interviewer of a gaming website job to figure that out. It is his personal life. Sure, it can affect his audience too, but what would have changed if it was revealed that he was indeed a pathological liar today? You still wouldn't believe his promises, the same way you don't now, regardless of it being pathological or not.
I am all up for aggressive journalism, but respect can still be a part of it.
Freeman
Banned
Or they are just wise enough with their money to not hand it to PM, flip out that it didn't payoff and then try to publicly humiliate the guy.
I see that you care more about attacking a figure you don't like than you pretend to care about journalism.
ArchedThunder
Banned
I enjoyed the interview, wish more people in the industry would get called out for their bullshit in interviews.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Wow.
That was a pretty riveting read. I never expected anything like that from the enthusiast press. The tension was palpable! Fair play to RPS for not holding back and fair play to Molyneux for seeing through a clearly uncomfortable line of questioning to the bitter end.
I get the rage over the KS thing, I really do, but I've always had a soft spot for Molyneux. I've got extremely fond memories of Populous I/II, Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, and the Fable series (yes, even 3). My initial reaction to the whole acorn business way back when was more "meh" than disappointment or anger. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I'd laid hard-earned ducketts down for Godus, but I've always assumed that those are the kind of risks investors of all stripes are aware of going in.
Even as his flights-of-fancy have piled up over the years, I've always extended him a lot of good will because of the impact those early games had on me, and always looked at him more as gaming's Baron von Munchausen or even a kind of charming, cheeky, 19th Century snake-oil salesman. It's irrational, I know, but that's how I view it.
Interestingly, inbetween the emotional blackmail and avoidance (which we've all done under pressure), Molyneux kind of summed up what I always imagined was his deal:
He doesn't come across as malicious to me, more head-in-the-clouds and (overly) enthusiastic. That kind of wide-eyed enthusiasm is pretty infectious, particularly in today's super-cynical, seen-it-all-at-age-five gaming sphere. I can't help but wonder what games would be like if they caught up with his imagination.
That was a pretty riveting read. I never expected anything like that from the enthusiast press. The tension was palpable! Fair play to RPS for not holding back and fair play to Molyneux for seeing through a clearly uncomfortable line of questioning to the bitter end.
I get the rage over the KS thing, I really do, but I've always had a soft spot for Molyneux. I've got extremely fond memories of Populous I/II, Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, and the Fable series (yes, even 3). My initial reaction to the whole acorn business way back when was more "meh" than disappointment or anger. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I'd laid hard-earned ducketts down for Godus, but I've always assumed that those are the kind of risks investors of all stripes are aware of going in.
Even as his flights-of-fancy have piled up over the years, I've always extended him a lot of good will because of the impact those early games had on me, and always looked at him more as gaming's Baron von Munchausen or even a kind of charming, cheeky, 19th Century snake-oil salesman. It's irrational, I know, but that's how I view it.
Interestingly, inbetween the emotional blackmail and avoidance (which we've all done under pressure), Molyneux kind of summed up what I always imagined was his deal:
Peter Molyneux said:
He doesn't come across as malicious to me, more head-in-the-clouds and (overly) enthusiastic. That kind of wide-eyed enthusiasm is pretty infectious, particularly in today's super-cynical, seen-it-all-at-age-five gaming sphere. I can't help but wonder what games would be like if they caught up with his imagination.
I think there's a couple of things here.
Firstly, culture shock. In the UK for an interview to really go after an interviewee is not completely unexpected - Jeremy Paxman and Jon Snow have made careers of it in exactly this way. even Graham Norton's chat show has a reputation in the industry for pushing the boundary with american guests in particular. Every week the PM faces hostile questions from parliament. An aggressive interview like this is definitely within UK norms for hard hitting journalism - it's absolutely a different culture to USA media for example.
Secondly, I really, really wish people would move on from the "He's ambitious and has vision but fails to deliver".
He lies.
His career in gaming was started through lying and fraud
Ever since his very first game he's done the Molyneux dance of promise too much for a game, fail to deliver, then slam the previous game whilst promising the next game fixes everything. I'm not talking fable or Black and White - he was doing this routine 20 years ago in Bullfrog. The only difference is, he had an amazing team of unrecognised people behind him who were able to make superb games despite his bullshit.
Just watch the video on Milo. There's absolutely no question that was lying flat out there. He wasn't getting excited about something he wanted to do, he looked straight into the camera and lied through his teeth about what they were doing. Just like he did 15 years ago with Powermonger, just like he did with Dungeon Keeper, just like he did with Black and White, just like he did with The Movies, just like he did with Fable, just like he did with Curiosity, just like he did with Godus, just like he's doing with The Trail.
There comes a point where, after 30 years of doing exactly the same routine, on a career where he lied from start to finish, you have to just accept the guys a con artist. Bullfrog made spectacular, industry changing games - but Peter Molyneux appeared to have nothing to do with them based on everything since then. Let's stop giving him credit for other people's work, and just acknowledge the plain fact of the con trick he pulls with every game.
Firstly, culture shock. In the UK for an interview to really go after an interviewee is not completely unexpected - Jeremy Paxman and Jon Snow have made careers of it in exactly this way. even Graham Norton's chat show has a reputation in the industry for pushing the boundary with american guests in particular. Every week the PM faces hostile questions from parliament. An aggressive interview like this is definitely within UK norms for hard hitting journalism - it's absolutely a different culture to USA media for example.
Secondly, I really, really wish people would move on from the "He's ambitious and has vision but fails to deliver".
He lies.
His career in gaming was started through lying and fraud
Ever since his very first game he's done the Molyneux dance of promise too much for a game, fail to deliver, then slam the previous game whilst promising the next game fixes everything. I'm not talking fable or Black and White - he was doing this routine 20 years ago in Bullfrog. The only difference is, he had an amazing team of unrecognised people behind him who were able to make superb games despite his bullshit.
Just watch the video on Milo. There's absolutely no question that was lying flat out there. He wasn't getting excited about something he wanted to do, he looked straight into the camera and lied through his teeth about what they were doing. Just like he did 15 years ago with Powermonger, just like he did with Dungeon Keeper, just like he did with Black and White, just like he did with The Movies, just like he did with Fable, just like he did with Curiosity, just like he did with Godus, just like he's doing with The Trail.
There comes a point where, after 30 years of doing exactly the same routine, on a career where he lied from start to finish, you have to just accept the guys a con artist. Bullfrog made spectacular, industry changing games - but Peter Molyneux appeared to have nothing to do with them based on everything since then. Let's stop giving him credit for other people's work, and just acknowledge the plain fact of the con trick he pulls with every game.
I haven't spent any money on a PM game since Black and White. He's always been a figure to poke fun at, but never had any anger toward him. But that changed after that Curiosity story... ya he has this coming to him. It's downright criminal.
Do people really think Walker was insinuating he's mentally ill? A lot of people use terms like that carelessly in a more casual manner (see everyone that says things like "I'm so OCD"). Yes, he should be more careful about saying stuff like that, but I really doubt his intent was to go by the textbook definition.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Stop with the "mental health" schtick. Please. You keep harping on it and people keep disproving it (or, like I am, telling you how it's irrelevant to this interview), but you just keep bringing it up. Please.
Show me how Walker is "deceiving his audience" by stating a question that anyone except the most uninformed would say is the case? Molyneux is a man who has repeatedly shown himself to be a chronic liar, who continually hypes up his projects and has nowhere near the depth or production he promised, who rode the back of the press through Curiosity and then left the winner high-and-dry, and who is now going on 2 1/2 years with no PC version of a game that was hyped to paying backers as revolutionary.
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I don't think he's calling the fans "bullies" though, just the interviewer. I still need to finish the whole thing, but someone who is dead set on proving you are a pathalogical liar, and is not open to other ideas, doesn't ring true to me as being a good interviewer. That isn't a good conversation, and not someone seeking the truth, just someone seeking to validate their own opinion, whether it's right or not, which could make the whole exercise more of a bullying experience.
i can see you think only certain people are beyond reproach.
i don't even disagree with you by much. the interview was frustrating and ugly.
edit:
slow down brah, i didnt realize this guy was your religeon
vv
REAL JOURNALISM!
You sure you reading my posts and not confusing me? Nowhere did I say he or anyone is beyond reproach. Don't be deluded. There's a way you can ask the same questions, be firm and tough, but not a petty, unprofessional douche.
eot
Banned
I don't know if tactful is how I'd describe Donahoe's Maggie Q interview.
Neuromancer
Member
Very well and succinctly put. Especially the part about the cabbage.
NoirVisage
Banned
This is a hot topic, tact and respect (yes respect) be danged when you can get internet famous by appealing to a certain audience.
You're missing the point of the question. The question was asked to rattle him, not to let him say he repeatedly makes false promises but only because he had such high hopes for his work. The person being interviewed is well trained in PR speak. The interviewer's goal was to get past the PR - that requires something the person being interviewed is not ready for, and not letting them wiggle free with non-speak.
Quoted because many people do not understand his history. Anyone asking for journalists to ask the questions more tactfully only need to read virtually every other interview he has ever given in the past 20 years. Journalists have been asking him about his lies for years but because they do it in the "nice" way, he gives them bullshit answers and they accept it.
Yes, it's a harsh interview. But the questions really aren't that hard to answer and if Pete was interested in giving honest answers, he could have and the interview wouldn't have continued to escalate in the way that it did. Instead, he kept giving self-congratulatory answers and excuses for what are bald-faced lies.
StormyTheRabbit
Member
I'm at work, cant dig through the web on my phone to find a few examples for you, but I'll be happy to later.
This is an industry that is all about catering to advertisers and shareholders, most "interviews" are used as outlets as advertisements for a game to talk about features and essentially sell their games. For example, any "interview" in Game Informer.
Not one question asked during this came off as unprofessional. He was simply asking direct questions, Peter Molybeaux is a grown man and should be able to handle that.
That's what interviews are supposed to be, direct and serve the purpose of answering questions that are on the collectives minds on a subject. Not a fluffy piece with tip toeing around the elephant in the room.
Now our opinions differ on what professional means, clearly, which is fine. I, for one, did not think the interviewer crossed any lines and had a professional, if not direct, demeanor throughout.
EDIT:
Upon further thought, MAYBE the "pathological liar" question was a little too out there, however when one reads the article, the interviewer explains very well why he asked it. Opening with it was a tactic, one that you may or may not agree with. But I personally find it justified.
ieptbarakat
Member
You think he should have a free pass because we already know he's a delusional over-promising developer that continues to burn off any good will from the gaming community? Is your version of honest journalism one where we look over false claims and lies from developers and focus purely on echoing wild pr statements? Besides, if a developer has to be asked the hard questions it likely has gotten to the point the developer isn't very respected by the community. Not that people should be treating developers and artists like deities to begin with.
Agreed.
Please do tell. Which audience?
Also, was Peter respectful to his fans in these 20 years? You don't need to imply someone is mentally ill (thing that Walker clearly wasn't trying to do btw) to lack respect towards someone.
WhatsintheBox
Member
i just finished reading the entire interview. it was pretty brutal and i kind of feel bad for PM
When did I say Walker was "deceiving his audience"? I said that a liar (not a pathological liar) does that willingly and knowing that its purpose was to deceive the customers, and this example means that customers are players, not RPS readers.
What I mean is that asking if Molyneux is a liar means that you are asking if he is willingly deceiving the consumers of his games, while asking if he is a pathological liar (which is different from a chronic liar) means that he isn't able to control that, even if he wants to. See the difference? That's why I do think this is relevant.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
The comment uses Shovel Knight as an example of a Kickstarter that did a good job of figuring out a budget and sticking to it, however if you look at the Shovel Knight developer's post-mortem, it states...
"We ended up operating for five months without money or payments to the team here. It was a difficult period, where some of us were awkwardly standing in front of cashiers having our credit cards declined, drawing from any possible savings, and borrowing money from our friends and family. But we made it to the other side!"
Running out of money and not being able to pay people for several months can sometimes work if you're a bunch of indies who are all invested in a project and stand to profit greatly if it succeeds. It does not work if you've got an actual company with employees and salaries.
Angelcurio
Gold Member
Pretty often i personally criticize publishers for making developers stick to release dates, even when their games are still in unfinished states (like AC: Unity, BF4, etc.), but then situations like this arises in which people like PM takes people's money with the promise of delivering a working product within 9 months, and yet 3 years laters it remains being nothing more than an alpha product. It simply makes me understand that the publishers actions are no so black and white as i thought,
The interview definitely asks the right questions. And even though some questions sound somewhat harsh, i would personally be extremely mad after paying for something and being still waiting for it 3 years later.
The interview definitely asks the right questions. And even though some questions sound somewhat harsh, i would personally be extremely mad after paying for something and being still waiting for it 3 years later.
Permanently A
Junior Member
It's not relevant because Walker clearly is not using the literal definition of the term.
Please quote me where I said anything like this. I'm beginning to see a reading comprehension issue on the side that thinks this is an example of ethical journalism lol. Peter should be held accountable and I have no issue with an interviewer doing just that. However, you seem to think that the Bill O'Riley style of journalism is "right", and that's kinda sad.
OK, I can see that, but there are ways to do that (with the same effect) while being respectful. I don't mean sticking to PR questions, but, you know, avoid questions that are related to mental health. To be clear, I don't know if John Walker knew that it could be offensive (not only to Peter Molyneux, but people with mental health issues -- like I said, I know some who were offended), but it ended up being.
EDIT:
Addressing this one here because I talked about it above.
crazyrabbits
Banned
It seems I misunderstood your initial point.
That said, it's still irrelevant. Regardless of whether he's asking if Molyneux is willingly deceiving his customers or not, the point stands that Molyneux's history of duplicity supports Walker's statement. And again, mental health is irrelevant.
If you're going to ask someone a loaded question, you need to have your supporting facts correct. Walker did, and repeatedly presented those facts to Molyneux throughout the interivew (who, in response, either spun his answer repeatedly or didn't know what to say).
Essentially, Walker broke through the media training/PR spin and showed Molyneux's true colours by blindsiding him and following up with facts.
DoktorEvil
Banned
How the fuck does this happen?