Peter Molyneux is a perfect example of Gaming's Groundhog Day feel, and it's well worth reading Jarrad's article to be reminded of how much of the same thing has been said for years (and compare that with an excellent idea of innovation from years ago). Along with never-ending console wars, fanboys and griping over review scores, he's a constant presence overtalking games that turns out to be distinctly average, or saying things about his games that are simply not implemented.

I was thinking last night about Peter's game output and I genuinely can't remember a game he's produced since Populous that was anywhere near (a) as good is it should have been, or (b) half as good as it was supposed to be. Innovation is rightly a laudable intent and without high profile figures attemtping it I'd be even more grumpy. But talking about innovation and implementing meaningful and enjoyable innovation are different things.

Fable and Fable 2 are classic disappointments, and I too love Zero Punctuation's review of Fable 2. My own problem in Fable 2 is that it removes the challenge to the point where you instead have nothing else to focus on apart from how superficial the game world's customisation is, how poor the combat, or most unforgiveably, how absent the motivation from either plot or environment. It's supposed to be innovative but it actually manages not to learn from Fable, prefering to keep the problems and add to them with new ones.

I can get a job as a blacksmith? Why? It just involves timed button presses for no real reward. Hardly new. And this from a man who describe more trad games as tortuous or uninspired. Hmm. Possibly only Sonic games have managed to be so consistently disappointing for longer than the games I've played of Peter's. Peter tries harder and sets higher standards which mean they end up rightly being judged more harshly as a result.

I'd love it if his thoughts and passions materialised, and I am happy there's a place for him in an industry often criticised for homogeneity or sequalitis. I'm just tired of the flipside and how little of what he says makes a transition from air into action. Because his games simply don't deliver either in terms of how he says he wants them to innovate or as good games on their own merits.

I seen the interview he made I loved it. I really want see what new game he will bring to the table. I like to see artist set free.

Dear Mr Molyneux,

there is such a thing a too much of a good thing. Stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking and you will realise sometimes you need a balance between innovation and established ideas. Think of it as a science experiment - if you change too many variables there is no way to tell which particular variables affected the outcome. Hence what you end up with is an ad-hoc soup of crap - a la Fable 2. With too many things vying for your attention, no single theme stands out enough to warrant my attention.

Regards

Leo
P.S. Pull your smarmy head out of your arse. God's gift to video games you aren't.