Reviewing GODUS as is at this time is not an option, the new build has mostly revised the rules around the game and thus invalidated a lot of the issues and complaints I would have listed. However, instead, I'm going to review the development narrative behind GODUS. Specifically, I'm going to look at Peter Molyneux's approach to developing games.

Molyneux reminds me of a child who's managed to find himself in a factory full of paint cans and brushes. Every colour is available to him, every possible brush thickness and shape, he wanders through the factory, his mouth open in a permanent expression of amused shock, his fingers delicately stroking the paintbrushes, his eyes full of childlike wonder. His imagination explodes, runs riot, he dreams of wonderful fantastic vistas, much like a child's imagination unchecked is capable of roaming so free and so far. However, like a lot of children, his imagination far exceeds his fine motor skills, so when it comes to taking the brush and applying paint to canvas...

... we get a splotchy mess.

GODUS is a splotchy mess. Fable was a splotchy mess. Most games that Molyneux has been involved in have been to some extent, a splotchy mess. The successes have come about when the rest of the team have been able to refine the splotchy messes and turn them into something that resembles what is actually either going on in Molyneux's head, or a marketable game, or somewhere between the two. It's tricky to figure out where the magic is, when it hits, like Black and White, it opens up whole new ways of looking at games in general, but unfortunately, you wind up seeing a lot of splotchy messes between the rare flashes of inspiration.

Not that it stops him. Now this would be perfectly human and forgivable were it not for the fact that Peter has a ... well, an almost Steve Jobs like "Reality Distortion Field" that he projects. It's as if there are two different worlds in existence at any one time when Peter talks about his games, and when he talks, we're getting a glimpse of the game -he- sees, and not the one -we- see. Case in point would be "Curiosity : What's inside the cube". Peter called it a profoundly lifechanging experience. Pete, mate, IT WAS A GAME WHERE YOU CLICKED CUBES. IT WAS COWCLICKER FOR APPLE DEVICES. THAT IS NOT A LIFECHANGING EXPERIENCE.

One day someone will tether Pete to the ground, and then we may once again see a return to form like the Bullfrog games of old, until then, we're going to see splotchy messes, infused with occasional strokes of genius, but often way, way oversold and far over marketed by Mr. Molyneux himself. Take anything that comes from him OR his dev team with liberal quantities of salt, and look up information about the game from other sources, then make your own decision if things like GODUS might appeal in the long run.

Reviewing GODUS as is at this time is not an option, the new build has mostly revised the rules around the game and thus invalidated a lot of the issues and complaints I would have listed. However, instead, I'm going to review the development narrative behind GODUS. Specifically, I'm going to look at Peter Molyneux's approach to developing games. Molyneux reminds me of a child who's managed to find himself in a factory full of paint cans and brushes. Every colour is available to him, every possible brush thickness and shape, he wanders through the factory, his mouth open in a permanent expression of amused shock, his fingers delicately stroking the paintbrushes, his eyes full of childlike wonder. His imagination explodes, runs riot, he dreams of wonderful fantastic vistas, much like a child's imagination unchecked is capable of roaming so free and so far. However, like a lot of children, his imagination far exceeds his fine motor skills, so when it comes to taking the brush and applying paint to canvas... ... we get a splotchy mess. GODUS is a splotchy mess. Fable was a splotchy mess. Most games that Molyneux has been involved in have been to some extent, a splotchy mess. The successes have come about when the rest of the team have been able to refine the splotchy messes and turn them into something that resembles what is actually either going on in Molyneux's head, or a marketable game, or somewhere between the two. It's tricky to figure out where the magic is, when it hits, like Black and White, it opens up whole new ways of looking at games in general, but unfortunately, you wind up seeing a lot of splotchy messes between the rare flashes of inspiration. Not that it stops him. Now this would be perfectly human and forgivable were it not for the fact that Peter has a ... well, an almost Steve Jobs like "Reality Distortion Field" that he projects. It's as if there are two different worlds in existence at any one time when Peter talks about his games, and when he talks, we're getting a glimpse of the game -he- sees, and not the one -we- see. Case in point would be "Curiosity : What's inside the cube". Peter called it a profoundly lifechanging experience. Pete, mate, IT WAS A GAME WHERE YOU CLICKED CUBES. IT WAS COWCLICKER FOR APPLE DEVICES. THAT IS NOT A LIFECHANGING EXPERIENCE. One day someone will tether Pete to the ground, and then we may once again see a return to form like the Bullfrog games of old, until then, we're going to see splotchy messes, infused with occasional strokes of genius, but often way, way oversold and far over marketed by Mr. Molyneux himself. Take anything that comes from him OR his dev team with liberal quantities of salt, and look up information about the game from other sources, then make your own decision if things like GODUS might appeal in the long run.