Molyneux: Hate Mail Changed Fable II DLC

I guess this rates a spoiler alert, nearly a year after the fact. But the dilemma presented at the end of Fable II so outraged some players that they took to writing good old-fashioned hate mail to Peter Molyneux.

In an interview on the choices the Fable series forces its player to make, Molyneux said Fable II's ultimate decision was a bridge too far for some. They so resented being forced to choose between sacrificing all their companions - including the beloved dog - or a sizable group of people, that they wrote in, vociferously. Molyneux told GameSetWatch he "did have hate mail from people" who couldn't sacrifice the greater numbers, and said bye to the dog.

It all "got to such a furor," Molyneux said, that Fable's first DLC was changed to allow the dog to return to the game.

You can look at this one of two ways: One, that Molyneux diluted the force of his game's calling card: choices and their consequences.

Or, two, that this isn't like filmgoers complaining about a surprise ending. Gamers don't just passively experience the story, and having no idea they'd be asked to do something this uncomfortable is quite a shock. I'm not sure I'd sent "hate mail," (I'm not sure how vehement it was, either), but I'm willing to see the gripe's legitimacy.

In-Depth: Peter Molyneux on the Importance of Choice [GameSetWatch via Destructoid]


Comments

    That was the point of the goddamn ending. It was a difficult decision. I sacrificed the town so I could keep my dog and then they change it so that you're encouraged to sacrifice the dog by removing all penalty from doing so?

    Fuck that.

    I decided I'd never buy and Fable II dlc as soon as it was announced that it could res the dog. Where's the DLC that resurrects the entire population I destroyed to save my dog?

    I never played the Fable games. I have a PC. I wonder if it's worth playing.

      Play Fable: TLC, it is by far the best Fable game and is available on the PC.

    Bah, there should have been even more decisions like this. It makes it interesting. I didn't buy the DLC though, I have something against paying for extra content in games. Was it worth it?

      Not really... The new items were fun and interesting, but the extra game play isn't really worth the 800MS points.

    Stupidest ending... cause a so called hero cannot do both.

    They should have made it much more.. realistic if you could say. Why would someone come to a decision of choosing between a DOG and a whole town's population.

    I suppose they just wanted the dog to mean something to the gamers and in the end they needed to decide their opinion of their fellow companion. But still it was a pretty crappy ending.

    A stupid, unrealistic crappy ending.

      The ending was diluted by this decision. That is not the problem however. The problem lies in the fact that the demographic and extreme scale of players targeted in Microsoft's marketing ensures that a lot of people who cannot apreciate the true meaning of "consequences for your actions" will purchase and play the game.

      I chose to lose my loved ones (along with my canine companion and my ability to search for and discover treasure) because that's what my hero would have done.

      Naturally as a result of that choice, my perspective on the character I had built changed. He was now the disgruntled loner, the unwilling hero, that had given up everything for a populace that would never know the true weight of his sacrifices.

      I was roleplaying. That's what a true roleplaying game forces people to do; play a role outside of their usual power-gaming selves... the role of the character. If the game says you have to choose between your loved ones or your people, you choose and you evolve.

      People continue to purchase roleplaying games without an understanding that they require more from the player than simple button inputs.

      As a fellow Designer, I applaud Molyneux for doing it. However, when he knew that Microsoft would literally be marketing to 'the masses'... did he really expect an alternative response to the decision?

      Ie; "Hey Molyneux, thanks for giving us real consequences in a game!! You're the bestest! Kthxbai! <3"

    I really don't understand this. From my memory you were never asked to 'sacrifice' anything. In the course of the game many people died building the Spire and your dog and sister did so as well. At the end of the game you aren't asked to sacrifice anything, your asked whom you wish to revive. Sure you can argue semantics on whether or not the Spire should have the power to do both, it seems like it should, but the point of it was to force you to make a choice, to choose the greater good or your own personal desires.

    Maybe my memory's wrong but the way I see it people whom complain that they didn't want to sacrifice anyone completely mis-understood what had happened. I think the ending could have been written a little better to remove the plot hole that the Spire wouldn't be able to do both, but as for the actual choices that you are given I think they are representative of what the game was about.

    Here's another viewpoint:

    I only kept the stupid dog to get more achievements, which you couldnt get without it.

    I resented the fact that I chose "Revive Sister and Dog" and then got a stupid note from my "Sister" saying she was in some dumb forest. Worst storyline ever. Yes it was supposed to be a climatic decision that would force you to make a difficult choice. But when the storyline sucks then who cares what the choice is.

    Fable 2 is one of the worst games out there... Fable and Fable TLC were much better.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now