|
Phone posted:This is an insane read. It's frustrating to me, mildly at least. I don't have much affection for Peter but the interviewer isn't really asking questions in good faith, I don't think. They're unanswerable questions.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
I stopped reading the article halfway through because the interviewer was being so lovely. He comes off much worse than Molyneux does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I dunno, I read the article and it seemed pretty fair given the circumstances? The interviewer is agressive, sure, but Molyneux has put himself exactly in the position to be asked those unanswerable questions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I posted about it a bunch in the thread about Molyneux but I think it's one of those situations where we just get to sit back and rub our hands on our faces and be embarrassed and be like "videogames" and hope it passes quickly because the interviewer is dumb and was bragging about owning him FOR THE PLAYERS and poo poo on twitter but then Molyneux is a pretty unsympathetic target and it's pretty funny to watch him get mad when someone just says "are you mentally ill" or "are you a liar" to him
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
It even came off in the interview that Peter Molyneux is just a world class bullshitter. He talks and talks and talks, and because he's saying a lot of things, that must mean that he knows what he's talking about, right? I seriously think Molyneux would have dug the same exact hole had the interviewer asked him "What did you have for breakfast today?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
VideogamesHotdog was really good this week, not only did Zack call out all the things wrong with Sunless Sea, he dropped truths about Tale of Tales. Thank you, videogames hotdogman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
I like to bring positivity to the table. :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Sunless Sea is one of the worst games I've wanted to like in a long time, I should listen to this VGHD
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I don't think I would even be a little bit mad if the next episode of Idle Thumbs was just two of the Thumbs doing a dramatic reading of the RPS/Molyneux interview.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
zapjackson posted:I like to bring positivity to the table. :/ You should feel bad about spoiling the episode about WOFF on Starcontrol II. Jeez have control on spoilers Zack 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Wait, people like Tales of Tales? Like, unironically?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Wait, people like Tales of Tales? Like, unironically? I've seen a lot of game devs (Steve Gaynor for instance) giving them props for doing whatever the gently caress they want and somehow stay out of financial ruin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I don't think I would even be a little bit mad if the next episode of Idle Thumbs was just two of the Thumbs doing a dramatic reading of the RPS/Molyneux interview. Given Sean's relationship to Peter that seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
That really is a terrible interview. I don't see how he's done anything to merit that level of contempt from a video game journalist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Man I love that interview. What's Sean's prior relationship with Molyneux anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
snuggleshrub posted:That really is a terrible interview. I don't see how he's done anything to merit that level of contempt from a video game journalist. While I don't really have an direct contempt for Molyneux the man has essentially spent the last 20 years lying his rear end off about anything and everything about his games. Most of it can be explained away by saying he's just excitedly telling people what he wants the game to be, yet you get to project Milo and hes just bold faced lying about everything related to that project.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
See also, his insane "it's not on rails" argument about that Fable Kinect game that was very obviously on rails, and how he was desperately trying to get journalists to sign something saying "I understand this is not on rails".
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:See also, his insane "it's not on rails" argument about that Fable Kinect game that was very obviously on rails, and how he was desperately trying to get journalists to sign something saying "I understand this is not on rails". gently caress I forgot about that. There was a story about how when he was showing that game off he started and ended every session at E3 in front of a whiteboard writing out and underlining "It's not on rails". It was on rails the only difference was you selected where you were going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
snuggleshrub posted:That really is a terrible interview. I don't see how he's done anything to merit that level of contempt from a video game journalist. Curiosity -> Henderson -> Godus Kickstarter -> £0.5m from backers based on promises he intended to break from the beginning is a good place to start, although in all honesty that's just the endgame of aw-gosh-shucks-isn't-Peter-so-naive Molyneux who's made a career out of selling games based on him talking utter bullshit to the press. Curiosity is getting a bit of a free pass here but let's not forget they were monetising it (even if you ignore that £50k pickaxe!) with the ultimate aim of the prize being, um, basically some free publicity for their next game that they decided to do absolutely nothing about? That alone puts Curiosity squarely in the "con" bracket, and that's before we get to Godus. e: I am conscious that I am already talking a lot about this in the dedicated thread for it so perhaps that's a better place for this discussion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
I've been a defender of Molyneux long past the point of reason, in large part because I grew up with his games from the Bullfrog era and things like Syndicate, Populous, Dungeon Keeper, and Theme Park/Hospital will buy a lot of goodwill, but there's no way to defend him anymore. The games he's made since the Bullfrog era have been either decent but lacking (Black and White) or flat-out contrary to what was promised (Fable, Godus/Curiosity). Now, even those games tended to be good, I like Fable 1 and 2 quite a lot in fact, but at this point he really is taking the piss. I can get behind being excitable and honestly just overstating things because you genuinely do want to put them in, but it doesn't make it any more honest in the long run, and I think the best thing he could do really is hiring someone else to talk to the press and personally shutting up. That does not change the problems with Godus and Curiosity as press/hype is only part of the problems there, but it would be have retained him a lot of goodwill with Fable, which was being hyped back when it was called Project Ego as a world-changer. I mean, the interview was certainly harsh and brutal, but the man is purportedly selling a product to paying customers, and with Kickstarter being involved it becomes rather more critical that he deliver on his promises. I can wait to see whether Fable has growing trees and that stuff and then decide whether and when to buy, but if I've bought into a KS like Godus (I didn't, I've been fairly judicious about KS so I've yet to be burned) I'd be pretty pissed off with the current situation. The fact that this is a problem commonplace in Kickstarter projects doesn't really shift the responsibility away from the man. I really do want to see some podcasts like Thumbs tackle the issue because I think it's an important one (as important as videogames can be anyway), but if there are personal relationships involved then it's totally fair to stay away from the topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:Curiosity -> Henderson -> Godus Kickstarter -> £0.5m from backers based on promises he intended to break from the beginning is a good place to start, although in all honesty that's just the endgame of aw-gosh-shucks-isn't-Peter-so-naive Molyneux who's made a career out of selling games based on him talking utter bullshit to the press. There are plenty of things to criticize Molyneux about and he deserves it. I just take issue with the tone of the interview and feel it went far beyond simply pointing out the objectionable things the man has done or asking him to offer an explanation for perceived misdeeds. I feel it was unprofessional. Edit: also didn't know there was a thread about the interview I won't gum this one up with more comments. snuggleshrub fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
It's a bad interview from a bad interviewer about a bad person. Bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
I don't know what Vanaman's relationship with Molyneux it, but he tweeted this: https://twitter.com/vanaman/status/566320165986373632
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Molyneux did make one or two reasonable points in the interview but they don't necessarily apply to his situation so they don't make him any less of a shyster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Just to clarify, I don't have any affection for PM. I just don't know what the point of the interview was. What's the aim? It's not like Peter was going to say, "You got me! I'm a liar!" and even if he did, then what? I'm not one of those guys who places ultimate faith in the free market and I think the fact that people give this guy money doesn't absolve him from anything, but an essay seems like a better avenue for this than an interview.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
My best guess for the reason that interview exists is that John Walker really wants people to talk about or give a poo poo about his website
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Red Red Blue posted:My best guess for the reason that interview exists is that John Walker really wants people to talk about or give a poo poo about his website Ah yes, the "lovely clickbait shill" argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Yes that tiny unknown upstart "Rock Paper Shotgun", desperate for attention because no one has heard of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Woffle posted:Just to clarify, I don't have any affection for PM. I just don't know what the point of the interview was. What's the aim? It's not like Peter was going to say, "You got me! I'm a liar!" and even if he did, then what? Well by that logic, Frost/Nixon didn't have any point, Nixon wasn't going to cop to anything. It doesn't mean interviews are useless or bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." What could that interview possibly have gotten from Molyneux?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
It felt like an opportunity to "pin him down" and get him to confess "in his own words" (those quotes are not from RPS but are the general sentiment expressed around hard hitting-style aggressive interviews). That said, I think the whole thing just needs to be thrown out when the opening question is a put-words-in-the-interviewee's-mouth question like "are you a pathological liar?" Where's the journalism there? What exactly is he reporting on or hoping to unveil? I don't disagree that Molyneux has been an unstable force who does a lot of damage to his reputation with his promises (and often drags his customers along with him, doubly so when his customers are also his financiers now that he has dipped his toe into crowd funding), but that interview felt more like an act of misdirection and bullying than an honest shake at reporting. (What in the world did Molyneux think he was walking into when agreeing to that interview? Surely not what the actual interview was, especially that first question!) I'm sure Walker felt it was his only recourse to get the answers he wanted out of Molyneux, but that doesn't mean that what Walker did was right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Woffle posted:Just to clarify, I don't have any affection for PM. I just don't know what the point of the interview was. What's the aim? It's not like Peter was going to say, "You got me! I'm a liar!" and even if he did, then what? The point seems to be taking a long-revered developer to task for (continually) not delivering something they promised, which basically no one in the games press has ever done. I agree the tone is weird and clearly Molyneux just took a "the press hates me" stance and probably won't learn anything from it, but it's someone in a higher position than a random internet commenter telling him "this is not alright" which gives more power to that argument. I don't know, I can see it going both ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
I saw it as Walker standing in as the righteous anger of a slighted consumer. I though it was a lot of fun to read, but I love schadenfreude. I'd read a gently caress of a lot more gaming interviews if they were outright hostile like that one was. Although, I'd generally prefer a friendly interview if it was actually interesting like, I think Danielle did an interview for Polygon about the game design of Captain Toad that was real cool. Give me in depth insights into the game's development or give me something straight up fascinating to read. Also this is probably unfair of me, but I just watched Nightcrawler, where Jake Gyllenhaal is a skeevy little gently caress who is just constantly running game on people and drat if I can't help but make the comparison to Molyneux.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
The purported problem with Molyneux is that you cannot believe a word he says. If that's your thesis, then an interview is the worst possible way to uncover some truth or persuade your readers. You're just giving him more opportunities to talk around you while you weaken your position by overtly trying to trap him. His word can't simultaneously be worthless AND powerful enough to undo him. If the goal is to discredit Molyneux so that people won't be fooled again, you just let his actions do the talking for you. List his broken promises, in order, every time his name comes up. If it NEEDS to be an interview, talk to the people who have worked with him. Seems to me that's where the story is. All of that is setting aside the fact that it seems gross (to me) to crusade against him so directly. It kind of seems like his star is falling of its own accord after a decade plus of nonstop scrutiny for failing to meet modern expectations. The conditions under which he thrived don't exist anymore. It's not quite kicking a man while he's down, but it's kicking him on the way down for almost no effect. I feel goofy Monday morning quarterbacking a dumb and pointless interview, but everything about it is shamefully misguided. Nobody looks good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
On a more positive note I loved hearing Kole just lose his poo poo completely at Gary's millennia-deep cut on Abject Suffering. (BTW shark fins are delicious, at least if the eponymous soup is anything to go by, and goose tastes like evil duck IMO.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Podcasting is a journey of self discovery. I never knew I had such a soft spot for biblical goofs, but there we go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Song For The Deaf posted:The purported problem with Molyneux is that you cannot believe a word he says. If that's your thesis, then an interview is the worst possible way to uncover some truth or persuade your readers. You're just giving him more opportunities to talk around you while you weaken your position by overtly trying to trap him. His word can't simultaneously be worthless AND powerful enough to undo him. Yeah, I'm still generally positive on the interview but those are probably the best points against it I've seen. Has anybody ever had an interview with a 22cans developer who wasn't Molyneux? Is he the sole person allowed to talk to people outside the studio?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Shark Fin soup is cruel and should be abolished, but it tastes pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Is there a reason why you can't just humanely kill the sharks like any other kind of fish? Like I know it's a thing that they defin the sharks and throw them back in the water to suffer an agonizing death, but I can't imagine any reason that makes sense to do it that way. EDIT: VVV *knits fingers perversely* indeed Baku fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
It should also be noted I'm a huge softy and want to believe people aren't con-men. At some point it will probably gently caress me over but hopefully no time soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:55
|
|