I understand there's more to it and that it's still a major undertaking, but there's no denying that some of the work isn't already finished. Many environments can be recycled, many character models can be recycled, a proven, existing engine can be used, the weapons are already designed, and many of the enemies are already done (unless there are no new ones, then they're all already done). I understand that making a game takes time. My only point is that, in the case of episodic content, especially for Half-Life 2, the turnaround time should be shorter than, say, a new game based only on the Half-Life 2 engine because there is a lot that can be recycled and I'd wager that most of teh dev team for Half-Life 2 episodes are already familiar with the resources they're working with.
In my opinion, if episodic content is going to work (which I personally hope it doesn't), shorter games, especially if those games all tell one coherent story, are going to need to be released in an extremely timely fashion. If the wait is a year between installments, why release it in small chunks at all? Hearing tiny pieces of a large story for only 5 hours a year is not my idea of a hot time. I don't even like the length of break between TV seasons, and I get a lot more than 5 hours worth of story out of a season of Stargate SG-1. If my choices are hear the story gradually over 3 years or wait 2 years and get the whole thing, I'll wait 2 years and play the whole thing at once. At least then, the narrative won't be constantly interrupted.
I don't think it's easy. I think it ought to be easier than creating a whole game from scratch. Especially considering so many things are already finished before each episode needs to be started.
You've sort of made my ponit for me. They're a development house. A whole team of people that aren't working in their spare time. And even if the engine was tweaked for Ep1, unless something was very wrong with it, why should it be changed again for Ep2. I thought the point of episodic content was to get the games to the players faster.
This way, you've got people developing for an engine they know doing things that are very familiar to them. The balance issues have already been worked out, the weapons are already finished. Write a story, place some enemies, test it to make sure it's good, and ship it. Let the engine team worry about engine updates and whatnot. If they get one done before development starts on the next episode, fine, then switch over, but if it's your intent to get the episodes out as fast as you can and tell a story, it shouldn't matter if the weapons are all the same or if the character models look just like they did in Half-Life 2.
They're producing episodes, individual pieces of a whole. It makes sense, at least to me, that the engine wouldn't be undergoing changes and that a team that is extremely familiar with the technology could be pumping these things out every three to four months and tell the story in a whole year.
I think the point the article was trying to make is that if we're going to be waiting so long for the installments anyway, why not just release an expansion when the new story arc is completed?
Now, maybe I'm very wrong here, but shouldn't the dev time be much shorter when the engine is done, the character models (or most of them at least) are done, and many of the environments can be recycled from the first game?
Isn't all that's left writing the story, placing the enemies, and scripting the events?
Or you could find an independent review site(s) that you find credible. Or you could play the games with your child. Or you could watch them play the games.
There was no ESRB when I was playing games as a kid. Those games included such things as shooting, shooting bad guys, blood, etc..
How did my parents ensure that I was playing appropriate games without a rating board? They watched me play or sat in the room and read while I played until I was old enough that they decided I could play what I want.
Besides, some games are easy to identify. Any parent that doesn't realize that Grand Theft Auto might have objectionable content seriously needs to think about what grand theft auto is: a crime. Any game named after a crime probably isn't right for a third grader.
And you're just as welcome to your opinion as anybody, but it's nobody's responsibility but yours to ensure that your children are only exposed to things that you think are appropriate. There is absolutely no reason for the government to tell me what is appropriate for my children or you yours.
How is it that Rockstar and Take2 can be fined for submitting their game to an optional software review board?
Besides, why do we have both M and AO? The ages associated with both are 17 and 18. Drop one and leave the system alone.
I wrote about this for eToychest earlier today, so I won't reiterate my take on the news here, but I will say this:
Parents have access to a wealth of videogame related information. Reviews and screen captures abound on the Internet. It's time for parents to stand up and do their jobs as parents again. If you can't decide for yourself what your child should be doing, maybe you shouldn't be a parent.
The version I'm eventually interested in is going to retail for $600 to start. Why? I want HDMI so that when movie companies start crippling playback over component cables, I can still watch movies in HD.
I also don't want to have to upgrade my console. The $500 version comes with a smaller hard drive and lack of peripheral support (no memory stick, SD card, compact flash card), and no wi-fi support. Why would I pay a mere $100 less for the crippled version of a console?
Next-generation graphics should permit players to become completely immersed in the universe that the developers have created for them.
So next-gen gaming is all about whether I have a good enough imagination to become immersed in a game?
Attention/. reader! You are being led astray! The true next generation is the Super Nintendo Entertainment System! It has games in which you will become immersed! Final Fantasy IV! Final Fantasy VI! Chrono Trigger! Abandon your XBOX 360s! The next generation of games technology isn't about technology at all!
Games have always been about story. Technological generations aren't about immersion, they're about the technology. The machine doesn't make me feel. It does math and pushes it to my TV. Video game designers and writers immerse me in the game, not the console itself.
Is having many sequels really such a bad thing? It's a safer buy for the consumer. "I liked Sly Cooper, I bet I'll like Sly 2 as well." It makes for easy logic. It's like looking at the box and thinking "I like mech games, maybe I'll give this 'Ring of Red' a go."
Besides, some of us actually like sequels to our favorite games. That being said, as with any game purchase, research first.
I think a pre-teen could understand the story, but I thought ICO was very mature and well thought out. It was a first-party title for the PS2 (assuming I remember correctly).
They're not just going after the kiddie market. Some of us don't want or need mature-themed games to have a good time.
I like a good RPG. I've played my share of Final Fantasy and whatnot, but you know what my favorite recent RPG is? Paper Mario. Why? Because it's fun.
Want a pick up and play sports title? It's certainly not Madden. Heck, my dad bought a GameCube for one game after seeing me play Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour. He hadn't played a game since he and my mom owned a 2600, and he was winning tourneys inside of an hour.
That being said, the GameCube does have some more mature games, too. Off the top of my head, there's Eternal Darkness, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, and Resident Evil 4.
Take a look at the Nintendo library. The library is age and taste-independant because they aren't going after the "OMG bump mapping!" crowd. They're after the "That was fun, I want that!" crowd.
Gorier != better. More mature != better. More fun == better.
Nintendogs is a pretty ideal solution for those of who currently live in an apartment complex that doesn't allow large pets.
My wife and I have already saved 2 cats (the maximum allowed by our landlord), but large dogs (which seems to be all the local Humane Society has) are out of the question. Even if they weren't disallowed by our lease, I don't think it would be a very nice life to make that dog live in a one bedroom apartment with no yard.
It's the story that matters in a plot-driven game. Who can honestly say that the Final Fantasy IV or VI's stories would have been more epid with FMV? Does Chrono Trigger _need_ FMV to be great? I think not.
Finat Fantasy Tactics, which has one of the most complex stories I've ever followed in an RPG, had no FMV. It is lauded by many as one of the greatest games of all time even though it came out after the FMV-heave Final Fantasy VII. People loved that game, too. Would it have meant less if Sephiroth killed Aeris using the in-game engine? No. The event is what moves us, not the pretty graphics.
Give me story-telling the way Half-Life 2 does it (interactive). Or the way Sly Cooper does it (slide show / comic book). It should be non-intrusive, and it should feel appropriate in the game's world. If that means we use the in-game engine, great. If it means we use FMV, that's okay, too. All I want is to make sure there's a good story to tell before you dump all your money into shiny FMV.
Yes, but doesn't the funding work a little differently there? When a television program is funded, it's not usually funded on an episode per episode basis.
You also have to consider the way in which one pays for these things. Radio serials were bought by the radio station, and television programs are bought by the television station. When I buy TV on DVD, I buy the whole season, not Season 3, Disc 4 (and yes, I know that's available).
The only serial novel I can remember reading is "The Green Mile," and I bought it in a complete volume. I didn't want to buy it 5 times (or however many not-really-books there were); I wanted to buy it once.
More on the TV thing. How many television programs are heavily story-intensive? Even most sci-fi programming (save Battlestar Galactiva) relies on primarily stand-alone episodes. I'm not lost when I miss an ep of Family Guy, but it can be difficuly to figure out what's going on if I don't read chapter 3 or if I don't play the second game in a trilogy.
Granted, the release cycle is longer, but aren't multi-game stories episodic?
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus Sly 2: Band of Thieves Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves
Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy Jak II Jak 3 Jak X: Combat Racing
Shadow Hearts Shadow Hearts: Covenant Shadow Hearts: The New World
This just feels like a cheap grab at gamer's money to me. "I know! We'll just re-release the same thing for 3 years straight! Add a new map and a voice clip, and you're done!" At least now, the story goes different places, and when I spend my money I know I'm getting a full game.
I don't buy books by the chapter, why would I buy my games this way?
I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, but I know that if I had an overweight child that either wanted to lose weight or had been told by a doctor that they should, I would try everything to help them.
If that means exercising together, great. If it means buying a DDR game and a dance pad, that's great, too.
I'd rather have a healthy child that got that way with a video game than an unhappy and unhealthy child.
You've definitely got a good point there. I suppose I should have been narrower in my original post. My intended meaning was this:
If you have to choose between great gameplay mechanics and a great story, you pick gameplay mechanics.
It doesn't matter if every single other thing about a game is great, if it's a chore to play, people will set it down.
And for what it's worth, I don't think I was advocating spending the money on graphics. Just like I'd rather have fun with no story, I'd rather have fun with sub-par graphics than kick-ass graphics with a crap story.
Of the big three, my priorities in a game are: 1.) Mechanics (well executed and fun) 2.) Story (does it have/need one? If so, is it any good) 3.) Graphics (are they passable?)
I thought this might happen. I enjoy plots in video games a lot. I play many RPGs for this reason and because I like most of the battle systems.
The story and QTE in Shenmue was what kept me hooked.
My point is that the first thing any game needs is good, fun, and/or interesting mechanics.
Would you have finished either of those games if the AI was crap, it was too easy, and it just didn't seem fun?
Story is important in some games, but solid gameplay mechanics still come first because if the _only_ thing I wanted was a good story, I'd go watch a movie or read a book.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand there's more to it and that it's still a major undertaking, but there's no denying that some of the work isn't already finished. Many environments can be recycled, many character models can be recycled, a proven, existing engine can be used, the weapons are already designed, and many of the enemies are already done (unless there are no new ones, then they're all already done). I understand that making a game takes time. My only point is that, in the case of episodic content, especially for Half-Life 2, the turnaround time should be shorter than, say, a new game based only on the Half-Life 2 engine because there is a lot that can be recycled and I'd wager that most of teh dev team for Half-Life 2 episodes are already familiar with the resources they're working with.
In my opinion, if episodic content is going to work (which I personally hope it doesn't), shorter games, especially if those games all tell one coherent story, are going to need to be released in an extremely timely fashion. If the wait is a year between installments, why release it in small chunks at all? Hearing tiny pieces of a large story for only 5 hours a year is not my idea of a hot time. I don't even like the length of break between TV seasons, and I get a lot more than 5 hours worth of story out of a season of Stargate SG-1. If my choices are hear the story gradually over 3 years or wait 2 years and get the whole thing, I'll wait 2 years and play the whole thing at once. At least then, the narrative won't be constantly interrupted.
I don't think it's easy. I think it ought to be easier than creating a whole game from scratch. Especially considering so many things are already finished before each episode needs to be started.
You've sort of made my ponit for me. They're a development house. A whole team of people that aren't working in their spare time. And even if the engine was tweaked for Ep1, unless something was very wrong with it, why should it be changed again for Ep2. I thought the point of episodic content was to get the games to the players faster.
This way, you've got people developing for an engine they know doing things that are very familiar to them. The balance issues have already been worked out, the weapons are already finished. Write a story, place some enemies, test it to make sure it's good, and ship it. Let the engine team worry about engine updates and whatnot. If they get one done before development starts on the next episode, fine, then switch over, but if it's your intent to get the episodes out as fast as you can and tell a story, it shouldn't matter if the weapons are all the same or if the character models look just like they did in Half-Life 2.
They're producing episodes, individual pieces of a whole. It makes sense, at least to me, that the engine wouldn't be undergoing changes and that a team that is extremely familiar with the technology could be pumping these things out every three to four months and tell the story in a whole year.
I think the point the article was trying to make is that if we're going to be waiting so long for the installments anyway, why not just release an expansion when the new story arc is completed?
Now, maybe I'm very wrong here, but shouldn't the dev time be much shorter when the engine is done, the character models (or most of them at least) are done, and many of the environments can be recycled from the first game?
Isn't all that's left writing the story, placing the enemies, and scripting the events?
Or you could find an independent review site(s) that you find credible. Or you could play the games with your child. Or you could watch them play the games.
There was no ESRB when I was playing games as a kid. Those games included such things as shooting, shooting bad guys, blood, etc..
How did my parents ensure that I was playing appropriate games without a rating board? They watched me play or sat in the room and read while I played until I was old enough that they decided I could play what I want.
Besides, some games are easy to identify. Any parent that doesn't realize that Grand Theft Auto might have objectionable content seriously needs to think about what grand theft auto is: a crime. Any game named after a crime probably isn't right for a third grader.
And you're just as welcome to your opinion as anybody, but it's nobody's responsibility but yours to ensure that your children are only exposed to things that you think are appropriate. There is absolutely no reason for the government to tell me what is appropriate for my children or you yours.
I would actually advocate either dropping M or dropping AO, but making M the 18+ rating.
How is it that Rockstar and Take2 can be fined for submitting their game to an optional software review board?
Besides, why do we have both M and AO? The ages associated with both are 17 and 18. Drop one and leave the system alone.
I wrote about this for eToychest earlier today, so I won't reiterate my take on the news here, but I will say this:
Parents have access to a wealth of videogame related information. Reviews and screen captures abound on the Internet. It's time for parents to stand up and do their jobs as parents again. If you can't decide for yourself what your child should be doing, maybe you shouldn't be a parent.
The version I'm eventually interested in is going to retail for $600 to start. Why? I want HDMI so that when movie companies start crippling playback over component cables, I can still watch movies in HD.
I also don't want to have to upgrade my console. The $500 version comes with a smaller hard drive and lack of peripheral support (no memory stick, SD card, compact flash card), and no wi-fi support. Why would I pay a mere $100 less for the crippled version of a console?
You are correct. In retrospect, 'fun' or 'immersion' would have been better choices.
In my defense, I was trying to be funny, not insightful.
Next-generation graphics should permit players to become completely immersed in the universe that the developers have created for them.
So next-gen gaming is all about whether I have a good enough imagination to become immersed in a game?
Attention /. reader! You are being led astray! The true next generation is the Super Nintendo Entertainment System! It has games in which you will become immersed! Final Fantasy IV! Final Fantasy VI! Chrono Trigger! Abandon your XBOX 360s! The next generation of games technology isn't about technology at all!
Games have always been about story. Technological generations aren't about immersion, they're about the technology. The machine doesn't make me feel. It does math and pushes it to my TV. Video game designers and writers immerse me in the game, not the console itself.
Is having many sequels really such a bad thing? It's a safer buy for the consumer. "I liked Sly Cooper, I bet I'll like Sly 2 as well." It makes for easy logic. It's like looking at the box and thinking "I like mech games, maybe I'll give this 'Ring of Red' a go."
Besides, some of us actually like sequels to our favorite games. That being said, as with any game purchase, research first.
I think a pre-teen could understand the story, but I thought ICO was very mature and well thought out. It was a first-party title for the PS2 (assuming I remember correctly).
They're not just going after the kiddie market. Some of us don't want or need mature-themed games to have a good time.
I like a good RPG. I've played my share of Final Fantasy and whatnot, but you know what my favorite recent RPG is? Paper Mario. Why? Because it's fun.
Want a pick up and play sports title? It's certainly not Madden. Heck, my dad bought a GameCube for one game after seeing me play Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour. He hadn't played a game since he and my mom owned a 2600, and he was winning tourneys inside of an hour.
That being said, the GameCube does have some more mature games, too. Off the top of my head, there's Eternal Darkness, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, and Resident Evil 4.
Take a look at the Nintendo library. The library is age and taste-independant because they aren't going after the "OMG bump mapping!" crowd. They're after the "That was fun, I want that!" crowd.
Gorier != better. More mature != better. More fun == better.
Nintendogs is a pretty ideal solution for those of who currently live in an apartment complex that doesn't allow large pets.
My wife and I have already saved 2 cats (the maximum allowed by our landlord), but large dogs (which seems to be all the local Humane Society has) are out of the question. Even if they weren't disallowed by our lease, I don't think it would be a very nice life to make that dog live in a one bedroom apartment with no yard.
It's the story that matters in a plot-driven game. Who can honestly say that the Final Fantasy IV or VI's stories would have been more epid with FMV? Does Chrono Trigger _need_ FMV to be great? I think not.
Finat Fantasy Tactics, which has one of the most complex stories I've ever followed in an RPG, had no FMV. It is lauded by many as one of the greatest games of all time even though it came out after the FMV-heave Final Fantasy VII. People loved that game, too. Would it have meant less if Sephiroth killed Aeris using the in-game engine? No. The event is what moves us, not the pretty graphics.
Give me story-telling the way Half-Life 2 does it (interactive). Or the way Sly Cooper does it (slide show / comic book). It should be non-intrusive, and it should feel appropriate in the game's world. If that means we use the in-game engine, great. If it means we use FMV, that's okay, too. All I want is to make sure there's a good story to tell before you dump all your money into shiny FMV.
I have a Windows PC. I just don't like the current thought that "if it's a PC, it must run Windows" because that's simply not true.
I admit, there is little gaming on Linux, but I'm sure there are gamers out there that use a Mac primarily.
Marathon - Great PC game. Mac exclusive.
WoW - Playable on a Mac.
Doom 3 - Playable on Linux.
I don't think PC game means what you think it means.
Why was this modded 'Offtopic'?
PC stands for, say it with me, "Personal Computer." There is no mention of operating system. I have two PCs at home. Only one runs Windows.
I sincerely doubt these ports will run on my Red Hat PC.
How much harder would it have been to write "Ubisoft to Distribute RE4 For Windows"?
Yes, but doesn't the funding work a little differently there? When a television program is funded, it's not usually funded on an episode per episode basis.
You also have to consider the way in which one pays for these things. Radio serials were bought by the radio station, and television programs are bought by the television station. When I buy TV on DVD, I buy the whole season, not Season 3, Disc 4 (and yes, I know that's available).
The only serial novel I can remember reading is "The Green Mile," and I bought it in a complete volume. I didn't want to buy it 5 times (or however many not-really-books there were); I wanted to buy it once.
More on the TV thing. How many television programs are heavily story-intensive? Even most sci-fi programming (save Battlestar Galactiva) relies on primarily stand-alone episodes. I'm not lost when I miss an ep of Family Guy, but it can be difficuly to figure out what's going on if I don't read chapter 3 or if I don't play the second game in a trilogy.
Granted, the release cycle is longer, but aren't multi-game stories episodic?
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
Sly 2: Band of Thieves
Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves
Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy
Jak II
Jak 3
Jak X: Combat Racing
Shadow Hearts
Shadow Hearts: Covenant
Shadow Hearts: The New World
This just feels like a cheap grab at gamer's money to me. "I know! We'll just re-release the same thing for 3 years straight! Add a new map and a voice clip, and you're done!" At least now, the story goes different places, and when I spend my money I know I'm getting a full game.
I don't buy books by the chapter, why would I buy my games this way?
It doesn't even necessarily need to add something to the gameplay of the original.
Some games have a good enough story that I just want to know what happens next.
I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, but I know that if I had an overweight child that either wanted to lose weight or had been told by a doctor that they should, I would try everything to help them.
If that means exercising together, great. If it means buying a DDR game and a dance pad, that's great, too.
I'd rather have a healthy child that got that way with a video game than an unhappy and unhealthy child.
I agree with you. As I posted above, my priorities, in order, are gameplay mechanics, story, then graphics.
The point I was making is that it doesn't matter how great the story is if a game is a chore to play.
You've definitely got a good point there. I suppose I should have been narrower in my original post. My intended meaning was this:
If you have to choose between great gameplay mechanics and a great story, you pick gameplay mechanics.
It doesn't matter if every single other thing about a game is great, if it's a chore to play, people will set it down.
And for what it's worth, I don't think I was advocating spending the money on graphics. Just like I'd rather have fun with no story, I'd rather have fun with sub-par graphics than kick-ass graphics with a crap story.
Of the big three, my priorities in a game are:
1.) Mechanics (well executed and fun)
2.) Story (does it have/need one? If so, is it any good)
3.) Graphics (are they passable?)
I thought this might happen. I enjoy plots in video games a lot. I play many RPGs for this reason and because I like most of the battle systems.
The story and QTE in Shenmue was what kept me hooked.
My point is that the first thing any game needs is good, fun, and/or interesting mechanics.
Would you have finished either of those games if the AI was crap, it was too easy, and it just didn't seem fun?
Story is important in some games, but solid gameplay mechanics still come first because if the _only_ thing I wanted was a good story, I'd go watch a movie or read a book.