8 ms·

When it's vicious and cunning, sure. But the guy's pathological, and still extremely endearing despite that. I had a high school friend who was lying all the t

When it's vicious and cunning, sure. But the guy's pathological, and still extremely endearing despite that. I had a high school friend who was lying all the time. His father had access to unheard of cpu prototypes and whatever else. We nicknamed him "C. The Mythomaniac" and called out his bullshit everyday. He was a really great friend.

ryanmcbride 2y ago
was your friend selling videogames to millions of people on the back of these lies?
- sheepdestroyer 2y ago
  1) Most of these games are really great 2) As with us and our friend, many gamers knew Molyneux for exactly who he is, and thus moderated their expectations accordingly.
  - tommica 2y ago
    #2 is a weak argument, a lot more gamers didn't know him and moderated their expectations based on the marketing
    - sheepdestroyer 2y ago
      Of course, I am not exactly excusing him. But as customer you should also not trust advertisement blindly, especially when it is pie in the sky too good to be true. Most reviews of the time would not miss the opportunity to joke about Molyneux's serial overpromising. It was a running gag before long.
      - gklitz 2y ago
        > I am not exactly excusing him. > But as customer you should also not trust advertisement blindly That’s and excuse for his lies. As a customer you should be able to trust adverticement, that’s why we have laws for adverticements. Blaming people who believe in a scam artists lies for having believed them is madness. The fact that he made games you like doesn’t excuse his blatant lies to investors and customers alike, and you really should listen to yourself and stop making excuses for him.
  - squeaky-clean 2y ago
    I don't think people started really disliking him until Curiosity and Godus. And IMO neither of those are good games. He also promised the winner of Curiosity 1% of all revenue from Godus, then retconned the deal to be 1% of profit after the game failed to become profitable.
    - gklitz 2y ago
      Actually it was reconned to 1% of the profit after they implemented a specific feature which they then never implemented. It was just a massive PR scam.
bagels 2y ago
I wouldn't like your friend either.
nmfisher 2y ago
Did his uncle work at Nintendo?
- askafriend 2y ago
  Why was this exact situation so common in the 90s - why did every friend group have a person who lied about an uncle working at specifically Nintendo?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ryanmcbride 2y ago

was your friend selling videogames to millions of people on the back of these lies?

sheepdestroyer 2y ago
1) Most of these games are really great 2) As with us and our friend, many gamers knew Molyneux for exactly who he is, and thus moderated their expectations accordingly.
- tommica 2y ago
  #2 is a weak argument, a lot more gamers didn't know him and moderated their expectations based on the marketing
  - sheepdestroyer 2y ago
    Of course, I am not exactly excusing him. But as customer you should also not trust advertisement blindly, especially when it is pie in the sky too good to be true. Most reviews of the time would not miss the opportunity to joke about Molyneux's serial overpromising. It was a running gag before long.
    - gklitz 2y ago
      > I am not exactly excusing him. > But as customer you should also not trust advertisement blindly That’s and excuse for his lies. As a customer you should be able to trust adverticement, that’s why we have laws for adverticements. Blaming people who believe in a scam artists lies for having believed them is madness. The fact that he made games you like doesn’t excuse his blatant lies to investors and customers alike, and you really should listen to yourself and stop making excuses for him.
- squeaky-clean 2y ago
  I don't think people started really disliking him until Curiosity and Godus. And IMO neither of those are good games. He also promised the winner of Curiosity 1% of all revenue from Godus, then retconned the deal to be 1% of profit after the game failed to become profitable.
  - gklitz 2y ago
    Actually it was reconned to 1% of the profit after they implemented a specific feature which they then never implemented. It was just a massive PR scam.

bagels 2y ago

I wouldn't like your friend either.

nmfisher 2y ago

Did his uncle work at Nintendo?

askafriend 2y ago
Why was this exact situation so common in the 90s - why did every friend group have a person who lied about an uncle working at specifically Nintendo?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]