|
MK: That's why I find it so interesting, because
you gave the player -- as well as having an overlaid story, you give the player
a bunch of simple tools with which to interact with these people of the world.
Was that something you prototyped?
PM:
I'm going to write this down, I'm sorry. That's really good
inspiration. I've never heard that toy sword...
MK: Well, I can give you another story that
I specifically wanted to tell you. You know how you come back, after being away
from the Spire?
PM:
Yeah.
MK: She had her husband and her son, and
she'd been away, and it was just a baby when she left, right?
PM:
Yeah.
MK: And he goes, "Oh, this is your
son," right? And she obviously reacted like, "I don't know what to do
with my son because I've never really dealt with children in the game before."
So, she thought, "I'll do a puppet show." And she's all
scarred and scaly and everything, and she's like, "I'll do a puppet show
for him."
But she got it wrong, and she was like, "Argh," like
punching. And the child was scared. And she went, "Oh no!" So she
held the buttons, and she cast a bunch of monsters. We remember him going, "Mommy,
don't kill me!" and running away. He might not have said that. She built a
narrative out of just these simple interactions.
PM:
Wow. I can tell you -- and this is not giving you any exclusive or
anything like that -- this is the sort of stuff that fascinates me absolutely
as a designer.
I think it was a small step towards what is quite a goldmine of
emotional gameplay, which is kind of -- as you say -- giving the player the
tools to kind of build their own relationships with people in the world. There's
one thing missing, though. And I...
MK: You can't say it.
PM:
I can't say it because I see [Microsoft PR rep] Carol in the
background shaking her head. There is one missing, and we've got that one
thing. We've been kind of thinking about that one thing, and it will be
powerful. When I show it to you, you will exactly understand...
MK: Just to kind of talk around that, do you think it's maybe that
you limit what the player is actually able to do? And it helps them fill in
these gaps?
PM:
Absolutely. It really does. I mean actually it's not... The things
you could do in Fable 2 were slightly
less than what you could do in Fable 1.
There was no boasting. And what we wanted to is kind of simplify it and make it
so...
This is what I think about
all the time, how can I make things simple so it's really enjoyable to do,
rather than more complicated? It's better to do ten simple things than a 100
complex things, if it's really enjoyable doing those things.
I think, again, there were
small steps we're taking on a much, much longer road. And this kind of feeds
into other things that we're doing -- trying to make things so simple that you
can build up that sort of narrative in your own mind.
CN: That puts me in mind to what Ueda did with
Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. A lot of people think those are some of the
most emotionally effective games they've ever played, and they barely have any
dialogue. His philosophy is subtractive rather than additive.
PM:
It is, it is. And I still think with Fable 2, we should have distilled more. I think of it as "distilling",
taking a lot of things and kind of refining it down and distilling it down. I
think when you do hear about what Lionhead's doing next, you will really,
really see that. Wow, I can hardly wait to show you.
If you thought that Fable is in any way approaching that, just
a tiny little baby step toward the thing that we're going to show you is a huge
leap forward. You and your girlfriend will enjoy this like you've never enjoyed
anything else in your life.
MK: She just plays them, and that event
attracted my attention. I just really was so interested in the way you managed
to make both a narrative you've written, but also allowed the player to
experience a narrative that they wrote within that boundary.
PM:
That's exactly what we're going to show you.
MK: And going back to the concept of... I
think that's how MMOs fail, because you can talk to everyone, right?
PM:
Yes.
MK: You can say whatever you like, and then
you don't know what to do with that.
PM:
That's right. There's no consequence. It's too much freedom. That's
such an interesting thing. Gosh, I just realized how I'm going to present
something.
You know, freedom... The
funny thing is that the concept of freedom is that freedom ultimately leads to
bewilderment. If you really were free to do anything in the world, I think you'd
end up being confused, and that's a very interesting point, a design point,
actually.
|
There's nothing wrong with the interviewer, the interviewee (for whose design enthusiasm I have great respect) or the facts of the interview. It's that, as a PC gamer, this interview creates two opposing bad feelings.
On the one hand, since Fable II has only been released for consoles, and thus as a PC gamer I haven't had the chance to enjoy playing it, the "dog and family" section was a bit of a spoiler.
On the other hand, the last official word I saw from Lionhead (in January 2009) was that they weren't working on a PC version of Fable II, period. So I guess despite being eager to spend money on a game that -- unlike many others -- treats exploration and emotion seriously, seeing spoilers for Fable II is ultimately irrelevant for a PC gamer like myself.
I suppose my point is that this interview did a great job of making me want to play Fable II or any other of Lionhead's upcoming and presumably innovative games... but because I do my gaming on a perfectly good personal computer, the innovation I'd happily pay for is off-limits to me.
Definitely some mixed feelings here.
The pc gaming industry has to start paying attention to who they are alienating...hint..not the pirates !
Still the question of how to make good interactions - is emotion more important (even strictly scripted in actions games like MAFIA), or is choice (like FABLE)... uh... when are you going to show us what u've got Pete? :P