Starker on 14/2/2015 at 09:51
Yeah, Molyneux may have lost his reputation, but at least he had a reputation to lose. He has made a positive contribution to gaming. While it's fair to take him to task for his failings, he doesn't deserve to be treated like the worst piece of scum on earth.
Thor on 14/2/2015 at 13:26
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Same. Peter should get called out on the stuff he does, but that interview was a disgrace for the entire site because of its assholishness.
Indeed. I haven't read much of that site's news and now I can't say I feel inclined to read any more anyway. I don't know who this John guy is, but from that 'interview' he has presented himself as a douche. Maybe he was just trying to be a bad cop or something. Unnecessary and stupid. Never do that again.
As for Molyneux, it looks to me like he has good intentions, but his tendency to over-promise I think is more of a personal issue he has than anything else. "Must tell people my grand vision, otherwise they won't take me seriously!" -- or something better worded. Then when they do take him seriously, it's great. Then he realises he can't make all of the things come true. And he didn't fix this quirk (I suppose getting away with it so many times might have even reinforced it) and this happened.
Well, that's just my attempt at a psychological reasoning...
henke on 14/2/2015 at 14:41
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
I couldn't get through much more than a fraction of that interview, since John basically started it off in the most combative way possible and it went downhill from there.
Not really. About the downhill bit that is. It starts off very hostile but it only gets more and more civilized as it goes. I though Peter kept his head very well, given the line of questioning, and gave honest answers. As for John, I've been less than pleased with his writing lately, too often he seems like a bitter old guy who's just gotten bored of games, but this interview restored my faith in him. Yes, it starts off hostile, but I think that was necessary to put Peter on edge and dissuade any notion that this was an interview where he was going to be able to put a positive spin on things and sweep all the important questions under the rug. We got real answers about what's going on at 22 Cans and we got good insight into the things that have happened so far, and I, for one, was left with a much clearer, more relatable view of who Peter Molyneux is. This was a fucking great interview.
Sulphur on 14/2/2015 at 15:01
I don't see the bit where it got more civilised, to be honest. There were pools of civility here and there before there was unnecessary viciousness. Here's what John says at one point - "My purpose here is not to hang you out. My purpose is to get to the truth of what's going on here." And this is what he does:
Quote Posted by "RPS"
"You made it a stretch goal; that was pretty shitty of you, wasn't it, when you know you couldn't do it?"
RPS: You said yourself, that you should not have gone and focused on the mobile version until the PC version was finished. This is all very disingenuous in light of you saying that.
Peter Molyneux: No, I actually said, “I wish I hadn't focused on,” I didn't say I shouldn't have done.
RPS: [Laughs]
"He didn't take anyone's money before making it with promises he didn't keep."
'At Rezzed in 2012, you said that what's in the middle of the cube is “so valuable, so life-changingly important, I don't want to waste the value of what's inside that cube.” Could you have done more to waste it?'
"I'm trying to establish that you don't tell the truth."
And more that I don't care to trawl that mess for.
He could have gotten the exact same information from Molyneux by applying similar pressure, without being an asshole. This is a
terrible fucking interview, because the interviewer thinks he's some sort of rampaging hero but instead comes off as an inexplicably angry manchild. Did he he back Godus for a couple of thousand quid or something to display this uncalled for bit of retribution in the guise of an interview, on what's supposed to be a reputable video games media website?
henke on 14/2/2015 at 15:20
I think John's anger is very honest, and I don't think he's saying those things just to be an asshole. You see dickish behaviour, I see a couple of people speaking honestly and getting to the bottom of things.
LETS JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE, YOU DICK :mad:
ALSO ARE WE STILL ON FOR FC3 CO-OP TONIGHT? :mad:
Sulphur on 14/2/2015 at 15:27
It's still anger, honest or otherwise, and it has no place in a professional interview. Maybe John can't help being an asshole, like Molyneux can't help making ridiculous promises; if that's the case, he shouldn't have been the one to do the interview. Even if Molyneux was the scum of the earth - which he isn't - it's a good idea to at least try to appear better than the person you're interviewing.
Do you think that you are a pathological disagreer?
WELL, I REFUSE TO AGREE TO YOUR DISAGREEAL!! EAT MY PANINI!!!1 :mad::mad::mad:
(Yeah, we're on. I hope my internet behaves. :()
Thirith on 14/2/2015 at 15:56
My impression is definitely that Walker pulled back the further he got into the interview, for whatever reason; it almost feels as if he suddenly realises just how antagonistic he was to begin with. I definitely came away from the interview feeling queasy; I very much think Walker could've been as incisive without being that brutal. While I often agree with him, I mind his strident crusaderish tone, ironically more so when I agree with him. Also, the starting question was a shitty one, because there's no real way to answer it.
henke on 14/2/2015 at 16:02
Yeah, I mean I do see what you mean, Sulph, and I agree that John's behaviour was not professional. I'd probably have an issue with it if Peter hadn't handled it as well as he did, or if it'd made him seem terrible. But I actually came away from that interview liking Molyneux better than ever. His mistakes are very human, and he had good, logical reasons for things like not being able to implement Linux support.
addendum: usually I hate it when interviewers display the kind of behaviour John shows in that interview, so I'm a bit surprised to find myself on this side of the debate. On top of that it's freakin Sulphur, whose opinion I respect, telling me I'm wrong about this. But, hell, I gotta say what I feel. I thought that interview was great.
Sulphur on 14/2/2015 at 16:51
It's fine, man, no one's calling anyone wrong. I'm calling John out for doing what he did because it doesn't sit well with me. Your viewpoint about Molyneux handling it as best he could (though I think I felt just pity for him when he vacillated and backpedalled and revised a sentence he said only a minute before because he seems incapable of doing otherwise) is fair.
So, really, we're both just looking at two different parts of the same article, and it's just that those parts have considerably more weight in our overall opinion towards the thing.
smallfry on 15/2/2015 at 01:02
I think the interview was very interesting. Most of those RPS folks are arrogant pricks, but I'm not sure if we ever would've gotten such an intriguing, honest look inside Molyneux's mind if John wasn't being such an aggressive arrogant prick.
