Bitmob.com

I played a visual novel game called School Days HQ this year. It has over 20 endings, each of which is COMPLETELY different from the last, and each of which can be reached through several different routes, each of which changes the context of what you are watching completely. In terms of interactivity, the player's role is limited to making occasional choices and then sitting back to watch the results -- barely a "game" by traditional definitions -- and yet it's ended up being my favourite game of the year purely for the flexibility in its supposedly "linear" narrative.

If all games handled narrative and storytelling in the same way the landscape of the medium would be very dull indeed! People like this chap need to understand that their way is not the only way."

It felt good to know that they *weren't* going to grow and change over their lifetime, that what I'd paid for was what I got. I didn't need them to be anything more, and I didn't feel any guilt over playing them now when there might be additional content further down the road. I would much rather things stay that way. Not every game needs to be a service. Competitive multiplayer titles like shooters, racing sims and whatnot? Fine. But keep that crap out of my story-based games because all that ends up happening is fragmentation of a once-coherent narrative.

My big problem with DLC is that it is, in many cases, piecemeal and very expensive for what it is. I'd much rather pay $20 for a full-on 20+ hour expansion pack along the lines of Shivering Isles, Dragon Age: Awakening or the old Black Isle expansions of yore than continually have to pay out little chunks of $5-$15 for one or two hours of gameplay. As it is, the vast majority of DLC *is* nickel-and-diming consumers, purely fuelled by greed. The whole "production cycle" argument is a convenient excuse, and I don't buy it at all."

Now, were you to 100% Gamerscore the game (I did) you'd see a significant amount of content the game had to offer -- but you'd also be directing yourself down a set of rails that the game doesn't necessarily put there for you. You'd also be missing out on a lot of incidental quests that help to flesh out the world, perhaps ignoring them because they don't seem as "important" as the achievement-giving ones. I know that's certainly how I felt when playing Oblivion on the 360, and it really bugged me.

The way to play Oblivion -- and indeed any Elder Scrolls game -- is to explore, discover things for yourself and follow the plotlines you stumble across that seem interesting. You can play your way, live your virtual life in the virtual world and continue to have an enjoyable experience for many hours.

Max out the achievements, though, and there's a sense of "I've seen everything this game has to offer" -- when in fact that absolutely is not the case at all.

I've been getting back into PC gaming recently, and the lack of achievements in many titles is seriously refreshing."

That said, I've been shocked at quite how many people are playing on PS3. Not shocked in a bad way—I'm delighted to see the PS3 get an online game all of its own—but surprised that people would seemingly gravitate to it as the platform of choice for this game.

I guess that's partly due to the things that The Shums says above though. It's seemingly been designed primarily as a console (or at least console-style) game. Apart from the social stuff, which is clunky and sucks ass at the minute, but is apparently a "priority" for them to work on. You'd hope, really, given the nature of MMOs."