Thanks Mark! Wonderful to see you out and about with this. Can't want to play it, I've got nothing but faith in you folks.
And with the sucking up out of the way, (as honest as it was) I'm doing a little thing on ragdoll physics myself for class, and was curious if I could bug you about your little experiment here.
If I can do this here, or should bring this to the Lionhead Programming forums, that's all cool. Otherwise, if you find time to hit me up at any of my contact info in my profile, I'd appreciate you.
Of course, if don't bother replying and I'll get the "Sorry kind fanboy, we're a bit busy" message that you no doubt intend to send.
Sure they're dropping the black and white buttons. But have they ruled out adding extra shoulder buttons and further mimicing the style of Sony's controllers?
I think most gamers agree that they aren't as akward as the black and white buttons were. Maybe they could use these as for playing older games.
Every console changes processors and such, otherwise what's the point? I don't get your point there. And really the current size of memory cards make the harddrive nearly obsolete anyway, as not many games had a large amount of downloadable content. And for that matter, think of the size of a given USB memory card that can be picked up on the cheap.
The only thing I'll miss is the ability to play with my own soundtrack. But again, we're back to the idea of large memory cards. If MS takes the money they WOULD'VE spend on a harddrive and put it all into RAM I think most developers would have a joygasm. Especially after working with 32MB on the PS2 for so long.
And personally I don't see anything right or wrong with the numbered naming convention. But that's a question of taste, and I have none.
Any time my friends talk that 'Soul Calibur 2' smack with those annoying GameCube controllers, I have go to the PS2 and pull out Bushido Blade. I'm sorry, there has never been a better fighting game that had weapons than Bushido Blade.
Sure, you may disagree. So may my friends. But the point is just that. Different peopl have different opinions. I love the fact that I can play old games. Sometimes I feel like playing them. Sue me.
Couldn't all gametypes be structured as multiplayer? I mean so far as single playing being two teams, the player (a one man team) versus the enemies.
And using this, wouldn't it be much simpler to implement coop play and versus play into games?
The most obvious reason I can think of for this not to work is the size of current game levels. Is this the problem? Note the load times between two sections of Halo, and how a lagging player is teleported to activated checkpoint.
Anyone know why me aformentioned approach wouldn't work on PC games, as PCs usually have tons more memory? Or is it just that most PC players don't care about CoOp?
And I think that maybe you're thinking that the libertarian way of thinking is in juxtapose to traditional liberal philosophy?
Don't let TV tell you what a 'liberal' is. And for Christ's sake, don't let a Democrat(hell, or Republican) do it either.
The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been around for quite some time and have meanings other than those espoused by the major political parties.
But hell, if we're making a game of it all, I suggest: What causes violence? (C): violence, control, hate, greed, weapons
(C)represents anarchistic philosophy - "blame" implies something is wrong. So long as everyone consents by taking part in the system that perpetuates violence, f'ck it. Let'em kill each other.
>Well, I did bite the dungeon keeper speeches and I did bite the b&w speeches and I don't anymore.
You feel burned, and I can completely understand that. I guess I've just always done my 'bestest' to avoid hype, and I didn't really pay any attention to B&W before it's release. But after enjoying his games before, I have decided to 'bite the apple' in the case of Fable. Here's hoping.
Yeah. Well, that and Theme Park. Well, that, Theme Park and Theme Hospital. And let's not forget the wonderfully fun Dungeon Keeper. And obviously, as we all know it, Black & White was popular. So I guess that one too.
Unless you could name some of his other recent games that have 'missed their goal'?
And yeah reviewers raved about B&W, and while I liked it, I can see why most didn't. Like the first poster in this story pointed out, everyone wants these exceedingly easy games. I really didn't think that B&W was any harder than Theme Hospital or Populous was back when first picked it up. (It's been a long time, to be fair.)
Not to mention the whole decision tree/perceptron deal it had surrounding it. That was why it got such big press, unfortunately.
And so far as his doing talks being his PR machine? Quite possibly. Does that make what his says garbage, though? For that matter, maybe it's possible that with Fable and The Movies nearing completion he's got more free time?
Personally, the biggest error was not supporting a mod community early on in B&W. But, that's just me.
Some people want longer games, and some want shorter. I see serialized games as a way to do that with minimal cost to the user. (I'd assume around the same price per gameplay hours.) For those wanting short games they could drop $30 and get the first twenty hours for twenty, and an additional 10 on a ten-buck disc. If that's all they want, they quit. (I'd personally prefer making each game self-contained in plot the norm.) Those who want more keep buying and playing. I see this as 'a' feasible attempt. Obviously it's not either/or. There's room for all types, I believe. Just like video has shorts, movies, shows, and serialized movies, and music has songs, albums, 'works', etc, I think games can have games, seasons/volumes, continuous (MMO), and who knows what else.
But so far as having large games that people can play a few hours, I'm all in favor of that as well. Like I said, I like large games personally. Though someone who wants just a smaller game might not want to pay a large price tag on something that they'll only occassionally play, I doubt it's any more of a hassle of someone who wants a large game 'right now' as opposed to continuous pieces.
And rentals, well, a lot of people in the industry aren't happy with rentals because they feel that they're cutting into developer's profit. Personally, I'm pro-rental. I'm a college student. I'm broke. Sometimes I get a chance to rent games and play rather than buying just one.
Heya. I'm from the up-stairs thread on this story arguing PainKilleR. (He's a trouble-maker.) Can I borrow a cup of sugar?
*ahem* We've mentioned that many people do prefer to wait for collected works (DVDs of TV shows, for example), but many people still can't wait that long. They prefer to see episodes as soon as they're available. I can appriciate your comparison. It's a damned good one. But I think it's a little off.
His first eBook sold 400,000. I'm not positive, but I'd guess that's rather low for a Stephen King novella, as he sold 3million copies of Green Mile and thought that was abysmal. So by direct comparison, he should avoid electronic means of transport altogether. And following that line of thought, so should games. After all, they DO sell much better in stores. But that's a flawed thinking in my opinion.
I do think that the writer of the article was wrong to suggest download massive amounts of new content on consoles, as the hard drive would fill up and you'd have to lose the content you paid for. I'd suggest selling the first (full size or near) game at the retailed for an amount proportionate to the content, with new chapters available for $5-$10 dollars at the counter. Cash in on peoples' impulses. Please feel free to join us 'up-stairs' in my thread if you want to go on about this idea any. I just genearlly think that you're wrong to compare books (low-tech) to games (high-tech) in terms of marketing. Games are much closer to video, which is often serielized with success.
Certainly, and I like the idea of "seasons" rather than "episodes", even though in the case of games it's probably not much of a difference.
Just to make sure I got the point across, I do mean seasons of episodes. Say they do the first six episodes as one plot-line, and then have a second art team work on a 4-episode arc. While theoreticly it could be year-round with four or so teams, I think there's such a thing as overkill. There has to be a point where you have to build a new engine, have a major starting point for those who don't like to join in, etc. And actually, you touched on the reason that I absolutely love this idea...
I think this really comes down to movie studios (and writers and directors) wanting to tell more complex and longer stories.
The idea of the 'Epic Video Game' will always be out there, and it was given new hopes of attainability with the worlds GTA3, Morrowind, etc. (Can't wait for Fable.) And while The Epic may very well be a world for the gamer to play around it, I think it's more likely that it's an interactive narrative that the player shapes, like in these games to a slight degree. And I think that serialized games are going to be the most realistic way to do this. You can use a memory card from the console to bring all of your old decisions with you to a new chapter, and even to an entirely new console, as we see with the Playstation/PS2.
But you do give me an idea, talking about this... Maybe the disc should be all content. And the scripts and voice-work could be all that's added in new chapters... Hmmm.
The success of TiVo and similar products may put me in less of a minority simply because of my reasoning for waiting for the DVD releases, but many people may not be willing to buy the DVD sets (even if they can shell out the money for a TiVo).
I didn't think about that, but I definitely see what you mean. This could indeed be a shift, but not necessarily toward DVDs so much as 'when I get ready, after it comes out', which in case we're both pretty much right.
On the other hand, I tend to get this sneaking feeling that most of the major corporations are trying to find as many ways as possible to make us all pay for things in the smallest possible increments so that we don't really notice the cost until it's too late.
You're not the only one worried, trust me. But I do think that this could lead to games being longer(in total), and richer(in content), cheaper for them, and finally the same price, if not cheaper, for us. I'd be happy with that, if games were better.
so I can see Han shoot first and don't have to watch the crappy CG slug in Episode 4.
First, I'd like to point out that I don't particularly like everything that this article's talking about, but I like the general idea. I'm not sure how large the average X-Box download is, but I think it'd be brighter to have later chapters as a disc you can buy for $5 at the store.
You're absolutely right about most multiplayer games, Western-style RPGs, puzzlers, and 'game' games not being able to really profit from this type of development and release. This is largely for content-driven games. But I don't see why Metroid, Grand Theft Auto, or even True Crime couldn't benefit from this.
The land could essentially stay the same (or change as the story merits) and just have continuing story in the same locale. Of course if this approach were taken I'd assume to have a lot more than 5 hours per chapter. More like 20+, at least. But I have the feeling that they'd make much of that as just new scripting using all the old models and textures.
No; I'd like to see 10 or so hours of rather high graphical quality gameplay per chapter on a new disc each month. This way you don't have to download a gig of new content, but can keep all of your story-altering decisions from your last game saved on the memory card.
There are so many problems with episodic games... Where to begin?
Let's begin at the start. Tell me, what was your childhood like?
First of all, there is linearity of design.
Veeeery interesting.... Sorry. Back to our discussion.
Generally, your character will acquire experience, gold, weapons, abilities, etc throughout a game. If a person jumps into the fifth month of a game, he will be at a severe disadvantage to continue if it is even possible at all. So in any game that contains character development, like the Metroid series, you will need to keep customers buying the packs in a linear fashion.
Not really. I think that if you start out in Chapter 2, there should some default starting values, or, if you want to load up a save from a finished Chapter 1, you should be able to. So far as the game remebering previous decisions you made? I doubt it would be hard to write in default choices as well that drop obvious context clues to the story to anyone who hasn't played a preceding chapter.
Which brings us to a position where you don't have an episodic presentation at all, you have a pay-as-you-go model combined with a content-in-patches model. People will start 8 months after the game is released and it starts to get some buzz, will play though the first available 9 hours, and will wait every month for the next level. And that, my friends, is a crappy way to experience a game. Even if you can only spare an hour a week, you will be left with nothing to play for 1/5th of the time, and a tight story experience that is spread out over two years. It would be jilted and terrible. Whatever coherent emergent experience the game may be presenting would be lost amidst the sea of time.
If you buy a boxed DVD set, you get caught up on all the episodes, and then are on the weekly (or whenever) schedule that everyone else is on. Boohoo. You think it's crappy? Hey, fine. I think the industry can support both models. Just like TV shows do, and just like comics do.
Could you imagine watching LotR one hour at a time, spread out over 9 months?
Just as easily as I can imagine watching it three hours at a time spread out over two years.... I'm sorry. You have to admit, you deserved that one.;)
And let's be honest, no monthly episode would ship on time. It should be in QA for the a month before it is ready for prime time. You have to create textures, unique characters, a map, a new musical track, and fresh voice recordings. You have to balance the difficulty, ensure compatibility, and test. You would have to develop the entire game before hand, and simply release it monthly. It would simply be a matter of withholding from your potential audience.
You could start creation of the 1-6 episodes at the same time with with different teams. The sixth being a relative 'end point' to major plotline. And if the first couple look like a hit, then begin work on a second arc.
After a year, what then? If it took you two or three years to develop the first game, and you've been futzing about during the intervening year listening to player criticisms, altering gameplay balance, and adding areas, you now will have had maybe a solid 6 months to design and develop the next game.
If the experiment works, after you've had your fun with the first 'volume', think about maybe re-investing in a new engine. Run it in 'seasons' like any TV show. Offer a boxed set for anyone who didn't get it. Maybe with 'bonus material' like DVDs.
The reviewer complains that Metroid Zero is too short, and would like to see more content released monthly, but the reviewer doesn't say where this development time would come from.
I'd assume from the art department. If a team can make a 40+ hour game in two years, then why can't they make eight 5-hour chapters in relatively the same time? Maybe even with a smaller art department, as the 'release date' for some of the
You've almost touched on the major problem from the production side. The whole thing is very front-heavy. The code has to be good enough to ship and support the episodic nature of the game, and the majority of the story not only has to be written, but fully developed, including all of the art. Artwork is one of the most time-consuming portions of game development, so if you were going to release episodes monthly, you'd have to be 3-6 months ahead of the curve, and even then you'd fall behind within 8-10 months.
You're absolutely right here, but in the fantasy world in which this feat is attempted (I know I'm an idealist;) ) an easy way out is to do seasons. And each season attempt to do a major revamp of the engine so that the problem of looking outdated isn't that bad. Halo is a few years old and doesn't look bad. A game a few months old won't suffer too much. And so far as the object being front heavy, yeah, it is, but that would be part of the benefit I would think. Just as companies license their engines for games that will come out up to a year later, it's possible to still have a comparable product.
With the way all of this is front-loaded, your first episode has to cost more than the rest, because you're not going to have as many people buying the 2nd episode as the 1st, and even fewer people on the 3rd, and so on. It doesn't matter how good your game is, that's the way it goes. The only sequels that do better than the previous ones are those with significant advances and improvements.
Yeah, the first would cost significantly more, but the subsequent ones would be cheaper. And I was thinking more for consoles, where there is static technology, but even then you're by far and large right. People, and I'm not badmouthing it, just stating it, love to be wow-ed. Nothing wrong with this at all. While I don't think it would look 'too' outdated, you're still absolutely right. The mystique of not knowing a new game is probably stronger than playing a new chapter of an old game you liked. Even if it was $5-$10.
When games are $20-25 my expectations are lower as well. The scale isn't linear, though, and when I shell out $50 for a game I expect a lot.
I actually think this is a problem all around. Granted cheaper prices often do mean cheaper production value, I think it's also a reason why serialized games wouldn't work. People would want to pay lots for a large amount of high quality, moreso than they would want to pay little for small amounts of high quality.
Paying in small portions for small portions of a whole is just a method of disguising the true cost. In most of those cases, I'd wait for the full series to be released and buy it all up front, just like I do with most TV shows any more. I'd rather pay with dollars out of my pocket than by wasting 15-20 minutes of the hour waiting for the show to come back on, and I'd rather choose when to watch and how long I'll watch (have 2 hours to kill, watch 2 or 3 episodes without waiting a week between episodes).
Maybe so, but I think you're in the minority. I think most people would rather watch the show at the first available time. Usually when it airs, rather than a year later when it comes out on DVD.
There's a reason that movies and books rarely do this any more.
Actually, I think that the following examples, Matrix and LotR, are reasons why movie might be doing this more often soon. (And also don't forget that they cut Kill Bill into two parts after it was finished.) Loading as much production as possible into the front of the projects make them cheaper to produce, as I would think it would do in video games. Especially as you can completely re-use any of the art created in subsequent chapters with little/no modification. With this in mind I think it would be possible to not over-charge the customer (your example of gameplay hours against price).
have to pretty much be done with the game before you ca
I'd just mentioned something like this a few weeks back on a blog...
While you're making the first game in the series, you plan ahead. Get good plots stretching over a few games, maybe even running themes and reoccuring secondary characters.
After the first game, you've got virtually all of the technology needed, save updates and fixes on the 'finished' engine. You've got a small library of content that can be used in the following games if any situation asks for it. This saves money already after the first game. Then, with each subsequent disc, you have a larger library of content to draw from. Assuming your chapters are only 4 hours of gameplay, you should be able to fit some rather nice-looking art on the disc, I'd think.
I already buy DVDs that have 5 or so hours of entertainment(movie, extras, and commentary) for $20. What's 4 hours of gameplay for $5 or $10?
Hell. I buy comics for that and get less time out of them. Think of it as a way to make video games like comics, not movies or TV shows. Like any good comic, you should be able to pay a few bucks and jump in at any point and get into it, but having the whole set would probably enrich the story.
People paid two full prices for GTA3 and Vice City because they were two different games (by content), even if they were nearly the same in gameplay. Good content would make this feasible, I feel.
Of course this would only work in content driven games.
Darn this no 'edit button' crap. But yeah, Paperboy. Sure, why not. With nifty Max Payne-ish 'bullet-time' so you can hit those front door steps without slowing down! And it doesn't even have to be Paperboy. Just call it Special Delivery and you've got a little more room to work around with. Start as a paper boy, go on to small parcel delivery, or if you choose the darker path, drugs, or even Mafia involvement! It's genius!
You're a delivery boy in a decent sized consistent city, delivering parcels from place to place while doing other mini-adventures along the way. You can't miss with this!:D
Every time this topic is brought up (or every time I bring it up,) I have to mention Rocket Jockey. One day I'm going to get tired of complaining and program it myself. But until then, I'll keep complaining!
With the main controls being 'left grappling hook', 'right grappling hook', and 'drop the lines', today's controllers with shoulder buttons are perfect. And with quick online play, the game would be unbeatable. Hm. Speaking of which, anyone know if theres a good way to play Win95 games on XP? The 'Compatability Wizard' sucks. Don't tell me I'm going to have to make a 95 partition to play this.
I've seen the guys talk, and it seems that they really like to pimp the idea of this being the video game world's Tivo or iTunes.
I'm one of those folks who thinks that 'if' this comes out, it won't live for long. But, I actually want it to succeed. A console where developers can make games and sell/rent them directly to customers themselves? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Christ Almighty.... I agree with the anti-liberal guy. (Funny sig, by the by.)
So, rhetoric, Friends shows the stupidest group of white people I've ever seen. Ever. Far more stupid than the Senate and House put together. But I don't think it's saying that 'ALL' white folks are this stupid. Otherwise, as a white guy, I wouldn't watch it. Wait... I don't watch it... But that's my point. I have the choice to not watch Friends, and not watch C-Span.
Jeffool. Though those C-Span cats can spout a funny line from time to time.
The combination of time and resources that goes into developing virtual goods to produce an assumed 'worth' is comparable, at least on a base level, to the developing of real world goods.
So if players spend 60 hours a week trying to achieve goals, attain resources, etc, do they have nothing for their time(or 'work'?)
I've got no problem with a game saying that people can/cannot sell virtual content. So long as they are completely upfront with the player before they have to buy the game, I think each developer has the right to decide if they want to allow this or not.
Those that do not simply adhere to the current system, with perhaps some better ways to insure that people don't sell characters (the larger issue, as I see it.) Ways such as refusing to transfer a character until after a certain time after it's creation, or refusing to transfer to a person with a different name or address.
Others should allow an in-game way of selling items for real world money, only with a small 'tax' for things over a certain amount. Say, for anything over $20, the seller is docked 10% (or some amount, whatever) as a tax for living in the 'land'. Wouldn't it be great to see a note on the bank wall reading "The kingdom is doing wonderful! Everyone will be expected to pay $5 less of their monthly contributions for the month of January! -signed, the King"? It's not an insane idea given the business model. Developers could reduce the users' monthly fees if things went well. This would be especially helpful to early adopters, as that's when you'd probably see the largest influx of people, fawning of the cool new scheme. As long as they don't "over" charge when the economy sucks.....
THX isn't a certification of audio quality. It's certification of audio quality inside an architecturally THX-certified room. So, it means that the sound on the game is best heard in an architecturally THX-certified room....
Unless they also hand out pamphlets on how to arrange your room according to THX standards, you'll get, at best, average sounding audio. At least this is how I understand it. Anyone?
I was joking with you bro! I thought that would've been obvious by my link to "Taste like burning!", which we all know as Ralph Wiggum, but doesn't turn up as Simpsons until a good way down the search page. I guess it just looked like me being an asshole, which I wasn't meant to be. My bad. Hope I didn't pile too much inane poo on your day.
A whopping 126 results. I looked at a few pages of that search. Came up with maybe one that didn't meant it as a direct Simpsons reference. Gee, I guess you got me.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks Mark! Wonderful to see you out and about with this. Can't want to play it, I've got nothing but faith in you folks.
And with the sucking up out of the way, (as honest as it was) I'm doing a little thing on ragdoll physics myself for class, and was curious if I could bug you about your little experiment here.
If I can do this here, or should bring this to the Lionhead Programming forums, that's all cool. Otherwise, if you find time to hit me up at any of my contact info in my profile, I'd appreciate you.
Of course, if don't bother replying and I'll get the "Sorry kind fanboy, we're a bit busy" message that you no doubt intend to send.
Thanks for the games and the cast, regardless.
If nothing else, those cats are DAMN interesting.
I don't know why, but I can't wait to give it a try.
I just wanna know which weirdos of the Lionhead team we saw in the videos.
Anyone know?
Sure they're dropping the black and white buttons. But have they ruled out adding extra shoulder buttons and further mimicing the style of Sony's controllers?
I think most gamers agree that they aren't as akward as the black and white buttons were. Maybe they could use these as for playing older games.
Every console changes processors and such, otherwise what's the point? I don't get your point there. And really the current size of memory cards make the harddrive nearly obsolete anyway, as not many games had a large amount of downloadable content. And for that matter, think of the size of a given USB memory card that can be picked up on the cheap.
The only thing I'll miss is the ability to play with my own soundtrack. But again, we're back to the idea of large memory cards. If MS takes the money they WOULD'VE spend on a harddrive and put it all into RAM I think most developers would have a joygasm. Especially after working with 32MB on the PS2 for so long.
And personally I don't see anything right or wrong with the numbered naming convention. But that's a question of taste, and I have none.
Jeffool.
Any time my friends talk that 'Soul Calibur 2' smack with those annoying GameCube controllers, I have go to the PS2 and pull out Bushido Blade. I'm sorry, there has never been a better fighting game that had weapons than Bushido Blade.
Sure, you may disagree. So may my friends. But the point is just that. Different peopl have different opinions. I love the fact that I can play old games. Sometimes I feel like playing them. Sue me.
Jeffool.
Couldn't all gametypes be structured as multiplayer? I mean so far as single playing being two teams, the player (a one man team) versus the enemies.
And using this, wouldn't it be much simpler to implement coop play and versus play into games?
The most obvious reason I can think of for this not to work is the size of current game levels. Is this the problem? Note the load times between two sections of Halo, and how a lagging player is teleported to activated checkpoint.
Anyone know why me aformentioned approach wouldn't work on PC games, as PCs usually have tons more memory? Or is it just that most PC players don't care about CoOp?
Brains can also lead to violence. Hence the removal of most people's.
And I think that maybe you're thinking that the libertarian way of thinking is in juxtapose to traditional liberal philosophy?
Don't let TV tell you what a 'liberal' is. And for Christ's sake, don't let a Democrat(hell, or Republican) do it either.
The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been around for quite some time and have meanings other than those espoused by the major political parties.
But hell, if we're making a game of it all, I suggest:
What causes violence?
(C): violence, control, hate, greed, weapons
(C)represents anarchistic philosophy - "blame" implies something is wrong. So long as everyone consents by taking part in the system that perpetuates violence, f'ck it. Let'em kill each other.
>Well, I did bite the dungeon keeper speeches and I did bite the b&w speeches and I don't anymore.
You feel burned, and I can completely understand that. I guess I've just always done my 'bestest' to avoid hype, and I didn't really pay any attention to B&W before it's release. But after enjoying his games before, I have decided to 'bite the apple' in the case of Fable. Here's hoping.
>He is living on Populous fame.
Yeah. Well, that and Theme Park. Well, that, Theme Park and Theme Hospital. And let's not forget the wonderfully fun Dungeon Keeper. And obviously, as we all know it, Black & White was popular. So I guess that one too.
Unless you could name some of his other recent games that have 'missed their goal'?
And yeah reviewers raved about B&W, and while I liked it, I can see why most didn't. Like the first poster in this story pointed out, everyone wants these exceedingly easy games. I really didn't think that B&W was any harder than Theme Hospital or Populous was back when first picked it up. (It's been a long time, to be fair.)
Not to mention the whole decision tree/perceptron deal it had surrounding it. That was why it got such big press, unfortunately.
And so far as his doing talks being his PR machine? Quite possibly. Does that make what his says garbage, though? For that matter, maybe it's possible that with Fable and The Movies nearing completion he's got more free time?
Personally, the biggest error was not supporting a mod community early on in B&W. But, that's just me.
Some people want longer games, and some want shorter. I see serialized games as a way to do that with minimal cost to the user. (I'd assume around the same price per gameplay hours.) For those wanting short games they could drop $30 and get the first twenty hours for twenty, and an additional 10 on a ten-buck disc. If that's all they want, they quit. (I'd personally prefer making each game self-contained in plot the norm.) Those who want more keep buying and playing. I see this as 'a' feasible attempt. Obviously it's not either/or. There's room for all types, I believe. Just like video has shorts, movies, shows, and serialized movies, and music has songs, albums, 'works', etc, I think games can have games, seasons/volumes, continuous (MMO), and who knows what else.
But so far as having large games that people can play a few hours, I'm all in favor of that as well. Like I said, I like large games personally. Though someone who wants just a smaller game might not want to pay a large price tag on something that they'll only occassionally play, I doubt it's any more of a hassle of someone who wants a large game 'right now' as opposed to continuous pieces.
And rentals, well, a lot of people in the industry aren't happy with rentals because they feel that they're cutting into developer's profit. Personally, I'm pro-rental. I'm a college student. I'm broke. Sometimes I get a chance to rent games and play rather than buying just one.
Heya. I'm from the up-stairs thread on this story arguing PainKilleR. (He's a trouble-maker.) Can I borrow a cup of sugar?
*ahem* We've mentioned that many people do prefer to wait for collected works (DVDs of TV shows, for example), but many people still can't wait that long. They prefer to see episodes as soon as they're available. I can appriciate your comparison. It's a damned good one. But I think it's a little off.
His first eBook sold 400,000. I'm not positive, but I'd guess that's rather low for a Stephen King novella, as he sold 3million copies of Green Mile and thought that was abysmal. So by direct comparison, he should avoid electronic means of transport altogether. And following that line of thought, so should games. After all, they DO sell much better in stores. But that's a flawed thinking in my opinion.
I do think that the writer of the article was wrong to suggest download massive amounts of new content on consoles, as the hard drive would fill up and you'd have to lose the content you paid for. I'd suggest selling the first (full size or near) game at the retailed for an amount proportionate to the content, with new chapters available for $5-$10 dollars at the counter. Cash in on peoples' impulses. Please feel free to join us 'up-stairs' in my thread if you want to go on about this idea any. I just genearlly think that you're wrong to compare books (low-tech) to games (high-tech) in terms of marketing. Games are much closer to video, which is often serielized with success.
Certainly, and I like the idea of "seasons" rather than "episodes", even though in the case of games it's probably not much of a difference.
Just to make sure I got the point across, I do mean seasons of episodes. Say they do the first six episodes as one plot-line, and then have a second art team work on a 4-episode arc. While theoreticly it could be year-round with four or so teams, I think there's such a thing as overkill. There has to be a point where you have to build a new engine, have a major starting point for those who don't like to join in, etc. And actually, you touched on the reason that I absolutely love this idea...
I think this really comes down to movie studios (and writers and directors) wanting to tell more complex and longer stories.
The idea of the 'Epic Video Game' will always be out there, and it was given new hopes of attainability with the worlds GTA3, Morrowind, etc. (Can't wait for Fable.) And while The Epic may very well be a world for the gamer to play around it, I think it's more likely that it's an interactive narrative that the player shapes, like in these games to a slight degree. And I think that serialized games are going to be the most realistic way to do this. You can use a memory card from the console to bring all of your old decisions with you to a new chapter, and even to an entirely new console, as we see with the Playstation/PS2.
But you do give me an idea, talking about this... Maybe the disc should be all content. And the scripts and voice-work could be all that's added in new chapters... Hmmm.
The success of TiVo and similar products may put me in less of a minority simply because of my reasoning for waiting for the DVD releases, but many people may not be willing to buy the DVD sets (even if they can shell out the money for a TiVo).
I didn't think about that, but I definitely see what you mean. This could indeed be a shift, but not necessarily toward DVDs so much as 'when I get ready, after it comes out', which in case we're both pretty much right.
On the other hand, I tend to get this sneaking feeling that most of the major corporations are trying to find as many ways as possible to make us all pay for things in the smallest possible increments so that we don't really notice the cost until it's too late.
You're not the only one worried, trust me. But I do think that this could lead to games being longer(in total), and richer(in content), cheaper for them, and finally the same price, if not cheaper, for us. I'd be happy with that, if games were better.
so I can see Han shoot first and don't have to watch the crappy CG slug in Episode 4.
Amen brother. Amen.
First, I'd like to point out that I don't particularly like everything that this article's talking about, but I like the general idea. I'm not sure how large the average X-Box download is, but I think it'd be brighter to have later chapters as a disc you can buy for $5 at the store.
You're absolutely right about most multiplayer games, Western-style RPGs, puzzlers, and 'game' games not being able to really profit from this type of development and release. This is largely for content-driven games. But I don't see why Metroid, Grand Theft Auto, or even True Crime couldn't benefit from this.
The land could essentially stay the same (or change as the story merits) and just have continuing story in the same locale. Of course if this approach were taken I'd assume to have a lot more than 5 hours per chapter. More like 20+, at least. But I have the feeling that they'd make much of that as just new scripting using all the old models and textures.
No; I'd like to see 10 or so hours of rather high graphical quality gameplay per chapter on a new disc each month. This way you don't have to download a gig of new content, but can keep all of your story-altering decisions from your last game saved on the memory card.
There are so many problems with episodic games... Where to begin?
;)
Let's begin at the start. Tell me, what was your childhood like?
First of all, there is linearity of design.
Veeeery interesting.... Sorry. Back to our discussion.
Generally, your character will acquire experience, gold, weapons, abilities, etc throughout a game. If a person jumps into the fifth month of a game, he will be at a severe disadvantage to continue if it is even possible at all. So in any game that contains character development, like the Metroid series, you will need to keep customers buying the packs in a linear fashion.
Not really. I think that if you start out in Chapter 2, there should some default starting values, or, if you want to load up a save from a finished Chapter 1, you should be able to. So far as the game remebering previous decisions you made? I doubt it would be hard to write in default choices as well that drop obvious context clues to the story to anyone who hasn't played a preceding chapter.
Which brings us to a position where you don't have an episodic presentation at all, you have a pay-as-you-go model combined with a content-in-patches model. People will start 8 months after the game is released and it starts to get some buzz, will play though the first available 9 hours, and will wait every month for the next level. And that, my friends, is a crappy way to experience a game. Even if you can only spare an hour a week, you will be left with nothing to play for 1/5th of the time, and a tight story experience that is spread out over two years. It would be jilted and terrible. Whatever coherent emergent experience the game may be presenting would be lost amidst the sea of time.
If you buy a boxed DVD set, you get caught up on all the episodes, and then are on the weekly (or whenever) schedule that everyone else is on. Boohoo. You think it's crappy? Hey, fine. I think the industry can support both models. Just like TV shows do, and just like comics do.
Could you imagine watching LotR one hour at a time, spread out over 9 months?
Just as easily as I can imagine watching it three hours at a time spread out over two years.... I'm sorry. You have to admit, you deserved that one.
And let's be honest, no monthly episode would ship on time. It should be in QA for the a month before it is ready for prime time. You have to create textures, unique characters, a map, a new musical track, and fresh voice recordings. You have to balance the difficulty, ensure compatibility, and test. You would have to develop the entire game before hand, and simply release it monthly. It would simply be a matter of withholding from your potential audience.
You could start creation of the 1-6 episodes at the same time with with different teams. The sixth being a relative 'end point' to major plotline. And if the first couple look like a hit, then begin work on a second arc.
After a year, what then? If it took you two or three years to develop the first game, and you've been futzing about during the intervening year listening to player criticisms, altering gameplay balance, and adding areas, you now will have had maybe a solid 6 months to design and develop the next game.
If the experiment works, after you've had your fun with the first 'volume', think about maybe re-investing in a new engine. Run it in 'seasons' like any TV show. Offer a boxed set for anyone who didn't get it. Maybe with 'bonus material' like DVDs.
The reviewer complains that Metroid Zero is too short, and would like to see more content released monthly, but the reviewer doesn't say where this development time would come from.
I'd assume from the art department. If a team can make a 40+ hour game in two years, then why can't they make eight 5-hour chapters in relatively the same time? Maybe even with a smaller art department, as the 'release date' for some of the
You've almost touched on the major problem from the production side. The whole thing is very front-heavy. The code has to be good enough to ship and support the episodic nature of the game, and the majority of the story not only has to be written, but fully developed, including all of the art. Artwork is one of the most time-consuming portions of game development, so if you were going to release episodes monthly, you'd have to be 3-6 months ahead of the curve, and even then you'd fall behind within 8-10 months.
;) ) an easy way out is to do seasons. And each season attempt to do a major revamp of the engine so that the problem of looking outdated isn't that bad. Halo is a few years old and doesn't look bad. A game a few months old won't suffer too much. And so far as the object being front heavy, yeah, it is, but that would be part of the benefit I would think. Just as companies license their engines for games that will come out up to a year later, it's possible to still have a comparable product.
You're absolutely right here, but in the fantasy world in which this feat is attempted (I know I'm an idealist
With the way all of this is front-loaded, your first episode has to cost more than the rest, because you're not going to have as many people buying the 2nd episode as the 1st, and even fewer people on the 3rd, and so on. It doesn't matter how good your game is, that's the way it goes. The only sequels that do better than the previous ones are those with significant advances and improvements.
Yeah, the first would cost significantly more, but the subsequent ones would be cheaper. And I was thinking more for consoles, where there is static technology, but even then you're by far and large right. People, and I'm not badmouthing it, just stating it, love to be wow-ed. Nothing wrong with this at all. While I don't think it would look 'too' outdated, you're still absolutely right. The mystique of not knowing a new game is probably stronger than playing a new chapter of an old game you liked. Even if it was $5-$10.
When games are $20-25 my expectations are lower as well. The scale isn't linear, though, and when I shell out $50 for a game I expect a lot.
I actually think this is a problem all around. Granted cheaper prices often do mean cheaper production value, I think it's also a reason why serialized games wouldn't work. People would want to pay lots for a large amount of high quality, moreso than they would want to pay little for small amounts of high quality.
Paying in small portions for small portions of a whole is just a method of disguising the true cost. In most of those cases, I'd wait for the full series to be released and buy it all up front, just like I do with most TV shows any more. I'd rather pay with dollars out of my pocket than by wasting 15-20 minutes of the hour waiting for the show to come back on, and I'd rather choose when to watch and how long I'll watch (have 2 hours to kill, watch 2 or 3 episodes without waiting a week between episodes).
Maybe so, but I think you're in the minority. I think most people would rather watch the show at the first available time. Usually when it airs, rather than a year later when it comes out on DVD.
There's a reason that movies and books rarely do this any more.
Actually, I think that the following examples, Matrix and LotR, are reasons why movie might be doing this more often soon. (And also don't forget that they cut Kill Bill into two parts after it was finished.) Loading as much production as possible into the front of the projects make them cheaper to produce, as I would think it would do in video games. Especially as you can completely re-use any of the art created in subsequent chapters with little/no modification. With this in mind I think it would be possible to not over-charge the customer (your example of gameplay hours against price).
have to pretty much be done with the game before you ca
I'd just mentioned something like this a few weeks back on a blog...
While you're making the first game in the series, you plan ahead. Get good plots stretching over a few games, maybe even running themes and reoccuring secondary characters.
After the first game, you've got virtually all of the technology needed, save updates and fixes on the 'finished' engine. You've got a small library of content that can be used in the following games if any situation asks for it. This saves money already after the first game. Then, with each subsequent disc, you have a larger library of content to draw from. Assuming your chapters are only 4 hours of gameplay, you should be able to fit some rather nice-looking art on the disc, I'd think.
I already buy DVDs that have 5 or so hours of entertainment(movie, extras, and commentary) for $20. What's 4 hours of gameplay for $5 or $10?
Hell. I buy comics for that and get less time out of them. Think of it as a way to make video games like comics, not movies or TV shows. Like any good comic, you should be able to pay a few bucks and jump in at any point and get into it, but having the whole set would probably enrich the story.
People paid two full prices for GTA3 and Vice City because they were two different games (by content), even if they were nearly the same in gameplay. Good content would make this feasible, I feel.
Of course this would only work in content driven games.
Darn this no 'edit button' crap. But yeah, Paperboy. Sure, why not. With nifty Max Payne-ish 'bullet-time' so you can hit those front door steps without slowing down! And it doesn't even have to be Paperboy. Just call it Special Delivery and you've got a little more room to work around with. Start as a paper boy, go on to small parcel delivery, or if you choose the darker path, drugs, or even Mafia involvement! It's genius!
:D
You're a delivery boy in a decent sized consistent city, delivering parcels from place to place while doing other mini-adventures along the way. You can't miss with this!
Jeffool.
Every time this topic is brought up (or every time I bring it up,) I have to mention Rocket Jockey. One day I'm going to get tired of complaining and program it myself. But until then, I'll keep complaining!
With the main controls being 'left grappling hook', 'right grappling hook', and 'drop the lines', today's controllers with shoulder buttons are perfect. And with quick online play, the game would be unbeatable. Hm. Speaking of which, anyone know if theres a good way to play Win95 games on XP? The 'Compatability Wizard' sucks. Don't tell me I'm going to have to make a 95 partition to play this.
Jeffool.
I've seen the guys talk, and it seems that they really like to pimp the idea of this being the video game world's Tivo or iTunes.
I'm one of those folks who thinks that 'if' this comes out, it won't live for long. But, I actually want it to succeed. A console where developers can make games and sell/rent them directly to customers themselves? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Christ Almighty.... I agree with the anti-liberal guy. (Funny sig, by the by.)
So, rhetoric, Friends shows the stupidest group of white people I've ever seen. Ever. Far more stupid than the Senate and House put together. But I don't think it's saying that 'ALL' white folks are this stupid. Otherwise, as a white guy, I wouldn't watch it. Wait... I don't watch it... But that's my point. I have the choice to not watch Friends, and not watch C-Span.
Jeffool.
Though those C-Span cats can spout a funny line from time to time.
The combination of time and resources that goes into developing virtual goods to produce an assumed 'worth' is comparable, at least on a base level, to the developing of real world goods. So if players spend 60 hours a week trying to achieve goals, attain resources, etc, do they have nothing for their time(or 'work'?)
I've got no problem with a game saying that people can/cannot sell virtual content. So long as they are completely upfront with the player before they have to buy the game, I think each developer has the right to decide if they want to allow this or not.
Those that do not simply adhere to the current system, with perhaps some better ways to insure that people don't sell characters (the larger issue, as I see it.) Ways such as refusing to transfer a character until after a certain time after it's creation, or refusing to transfer to a person with a different name or address.
Others should allow an in-game way of selling items for real world money, only with a small 'tax' for things over a certain amount. Say, for anything over $20, the seller is docked 10% (or some amount, whatever) as a tax for living in the 'land'. Wouldn't it be great to see a note on the bank wall reading "The kingdom is doing wonderful! Everyone will be expected to pay $5 less of their monthly contributions for the month of January! -signed, the King"? It's not an insane idea given the business model. Developers could reduce the users' monthly fees if things went well. This would be especially helpful to early adopters, as that's when you'd probably see the largest influx of people, fawning of the cool new scheme. As long as they don't "over" charge when the economy sucks.....
Jeffool
Just some guy.
Wow. Thanks for the corrections folk. I humbly bow out. (Now don't you wish others would on Slashdot when proved wrong? ;) )
Jeffool.
THX isn't a certification of audio quality. It's certification of audio quality inside an architecturally THX-certified room. So, it means that the sound on the game is best heard in an architecturally THX-certified room....
Unless they also hand out pamphlets on how to arrange your room according to THX standards, you'll get, at best, average sounding audio. At least this is how I understand it. Anyone?
Jeffool.
I was joking with you bro! I thought that would've been obvious by my link to "Taste like burning!", which we all know as Ralph Wiggum, but doesn't turn up as Simpsons until a good way down the search page. I guess it just looked like me being an asshole, which I wasn't meant to be. My bad. Hope I didn't pile too much inane poo on your day.
Jeffool.
"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"
A whopping 126 results. I looked at a few pages of that search. Came up with maybe one that didn't meant it as a direct Simpsons reference. Gee, I guess you got me.
Jeffool.
"Tastes like burning!"