Slashdot Mirror
Why Bother With Episodic Games?
Gamasutra is running a piece today entitled Why Bother With Episodic Games? Author Rick Sanchez ponders the rationale behind this business model, and offers up a few reasons why 'the next big thing' is actually a good idea for both gamers and game developers. From the article: "Traditional game development does have a feedback loop, but with years between results. Betting the studio that the design decisions made for a sequel were the right ones can be disastrous if you were wrong. With short iteration cycles, gameplay mechanics that an audience responds to can be used to turn a moderate performer into a hit. This model still needs to be vetted out in the video game world, but it works in every other form of media that we consume, so there's no reason to think it won't work for games."
We have "episodic nature of games" to thank for some of the most unfulfilling ending sequences ever. And to say it works everywhere so it should work in video games is rubbish, because it doesn't always work everywhere (I cite the ending of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which IMO was reminiscent of Halo 2's ending in terms of closure and satisfaction).
I like basketball!!1!
This may be all well-and-good for a $5-$10 game. But if you're going to release a $50-$60 game, you'd better make DAMN sure it delivers more than just promises of FUTURE content and FUTURE fixes.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"Episodic content" was already around for a long time in the form of expansion packs (and related tactics.) For example:
- Doom was released - shortly later, there was Doom II and Final Doom.
- Quake was released - it received two expansion packs. (As a side note, a bug involving firing the thunderbolt underwater regressed back into the expansions.)
- Quake 2 was released, and it also received two expansions.
- The Sims is known for a large set of expansion packs - while not technically episodic, it's the exact same system used in episodic development.
telling us why episodic content is great and start showing us. Yes, I know about all the advantages, but maybe we should start talking about overcoming the hefty drawbacks rather than pretending they don't exist.
I honestly do not see a future for episodic content. Like microtransactions, the thought of the idea becoming an industry standard makes me sick to my stomach. But hey, I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong. That's the problem. For all the talk, no one has done it.
Cringe? Really?
No one is forcing you... and besides, you are thinking of this in a limited scope. Episodic content can be as simple as more songs for Guitar Hero.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Pirates of the Caribbean is a trilogy, and that's generally the way it works. You get one good movie, with a conclusion, and people like it enough that someone decides to make more, so they turn it into a trilogy. The second movie will expand on the first, opening up a larger universe, but leaves the story entirely unfinished -- in fact, it's often deliberately some sort of cliffhanger. Then you get the third movie, and a conclusion -- and if it's a good series, the conclusion is worth the wait.
After all, the ending of Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back was pretty unsatisfying, and deliberately so. Then we get Return of the Jedi, and a real ending.
Lord of the Rings. First movie was pretty good -- not much closure, but it was still pretty good. Second movie was lots of fighting, actually somewhat of a grind, but still some good elements. And the third movie made it all worthwhile.
The Matrix: Reloaded. Ends with the main character passed out, possibly dead, and a couple of other things. I'm not saying Revolutions answered everything I wanted it to, but again, it did provide closure.
I don't like episodes that run on forever, certainly not if I have to pay for them. But episodic doesn't mean never-ending. Consider: The first 50 episodes or so of Naruto were actually pretty decent, and closed some very good storylines. But, now they're up to some 220 episodes, and it's definitely getting old. Last I checked, they still really hadn't done much about Sasuke or Orochimaru.
And, compare that to, say, Fullmetal Alchemist. Ended after 50 episodes. Or Trigun, or Cowboy Bebop, or Outlaw Star, or Noir -- many good animes end after a season of 25 episodes or so.
By that token, I'm really appreciating the Half-Life 2 episodes, because I know there will be exactly three of them. It helps to know that there's an ending coming, but that we don't have to buy anymore episodes if the first one sucked. It also helps to be able to provide feedback -- and that, combined with the nature of game development, means subsequent episodes can keep getting better. Or Halo 2 -- we know Halo 3 will finish it.
If you don't like it, wait till the conclusion is made, then buy the whole thing -- earlier episodes (or games) will be cheaper by then.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
In the world of television, my favorite example of this is a show like "Malcolm in the Middle." I loved the early episodes, but my wife hated them. As the show evolved, the writers and actors developed a better sense of what the show was about, what jokes made sense and what you could do with the characters. That evolution won my wife over. Episodic games have this same opportunity.
This is a seriously bogus comparison. Apples and oranges. Broadcast TV shows are free to consumers. Maybe you pay a monthly fee for cable access, but at the end of the day nobody is paying $8.99 for an episode of Malcolm. If people don't like the first episode of a video game they had to pay for, are they really going to buy the next episode to "give it a chance"? Not for my dollar. Not the same thing, not the same opportunity.
For another example, check out the third page of his article where the author provides numbers to show that there are nearly twice as many PCs as there are consoles in american homes. He then states that "the PC is, bar none, the most pervasive system on which to play games." Then he goes on to say how "odd" it is that console revenues are more than four times that of PC game revenues. Does it not occur to the author that maybe a lot of these PCs are ancient and most people don't feel like paying Pong or Zork anymore? Or that a more fair comparison might be to compare the number of PCs and consoles sold to families only in the past year or three?
The author goes on to slam the Wii by claiming that "at the end of the day, Nintendo is still selling $40 dollar-plus software that requires a fairly expensive piece of consumer electronics to run it." Riiiight, like anyone is buying a Wii just to play Wii sports. The deeper implication being "why by an expensive Wii when you can already play games on your PC?" Like everyone already magically owns a PC at no cost. Yet if the author made even a little effort to be objective, he might notice that game consoles are a lot cheaper than most PCs. The Wii especially, retailing for only $250.
I hope Gamasutra felt they got their $5 worth (or whatever they paid) for that article.