Separator
Episodic Gaming-Part of the Future?
Default_picture
Thursday, August 27, 2009

Episodic gaming is becoming more commonplace every day. However it does seem to be limited to certain genres,specifically narrative driven games and adventure games. The currently ongoing Monkey Island episodes are good examples.

Episodic games are a relatively new concept,and this seems to have led to some problems.There are issues with timing,should an episode come out every month,every week?

Monthly releases add to the suspense of waiting for the game and they are more suited to a stand alone game that is part of a bigger narrative, whereas weekly releases would help to keep the game fresh in gamers minds.

Look at games such as Half Life 2,that has been receiving episodic updates,but some would consider the time gap between each release to be ridiculous. This is the biggest problem with episodic games and needs to be addressed before the format can advance and become more commonly accepted.

At this years Gamescom it was announced by Lionhead that Fable 2 was going to be released in an episodic format over Xbox Live, and that the first episode would be free.I sthat the way of the future?

A game is released in stores and then 6 months to a year later,when the hype for it has died down they re-release it over an online distribution system(XBL,PSN,Steam etc) with an episode free to entice users who would not have bought the game first time round.

Is this a good or bad thing? I think it could be a great way to get people interested in games they would not have otherwise touched. So long as the support is kept up,that they would not just release 2 or 3 episodes and then leave it uncompleted.

The timing between releases is also crucial,I think weekly releases would best suit Fable 2.Playing 3 or 4 hours of the game a week seems better then playing 3 or 4 hours of a game each month, the gap is just to big,it is much better suited to stand alone episodes like the ones featured in Sam and Max or Monkey Island.

Sports games also seem to be heading toward an episodic future,many sports games only make incremental inprovements each year, so instead of paying full price for a slightly beefier version of the game you bought last year,would you be willing to pay maybe a quarter of that price for a download which contains those updates?

I know I would.

So I believe episodic gaming to be here to stay, although only with certain genres,it just doesn't seem suited to action games or FPS'.

If developers stick to the genres it works with and if they can work out the kinks with the timing of releases I think episodic games could become an important facet of the gaming world, at least in part.

 
0
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (14)
Default_picture
August 27, 2009
I honestly believe that FPS games can be eposodic. They just have to put single player totally seperate from multiplayer.
Default_picture
August 27, 2009
@Toby-Agreed. Half Life 2.

Episodic content not only would allow time for developers to polish it (No need to sell it all as one package and rush certain parts that fell behind) but also extend the life. People still talk about and play HL2. Anyone still play Halo 2 on here? I didn't think so.

Of course, like Toby said, the multiplayer would still need to be up and running day one for this to work. I think Episodic content is a good thing.
Default_picture
August 27, 2009
That could work but would consumers be willing to pay for a multiplayer and then several episodes for the single player?Publishers could get greedy,overcharge for something like the multiplayer.How much memory would that take up anyway?does anybody know?
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
@Ultan- I think so. I think a lot of people, myself included would RATHER pay for Multiplayer and have the option to buy the single player if we want. Since shooters are so multiplayer focused nowadays, the single player usually sucks.

This would make the game cheaper if you just paid for the multiplayer and if the single player WAS good, you can still have the option to get it.
Lance_darnell
August 28, 2009
Oh NO! If publishers read what Toby and David are saying it would be the death of the single-player FPS!! :D
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
@David- I do tend to play the multiplayer only in some games these days(I was COD 4 addict for about year) but I do like the option of the single player if I get bored.I probably wouldn't be too upset if I had to buy both seperately,so long as pricing is done well.
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
@lance it would also cut down on crappy single player FPS games as well and lower the cost we have to shell out at one time compared to the over all period wehre we would pay more for better quality IMO :)
Lance_darnell
August 28, 2009
@Toby - I laugh, but after thinking about it, just releasing a multiplayer game would be a great way of testing the game mechanics and tweeking them until they are right. Then once there is a lot of love for the game, release a single-player level and the fans would eat it up.

Imagine how fast I would buy single-player story levels for TF2!!! Oh, Yeah!;D
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
@Lance Team fortress 2 wont be on PS3 cause valve does not like that system
Lance_darnell
August 28, 2009
What!? Explain this!
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
@Toby and Lance- Didn't they recently announce that they regret not developing for the PS3 more and that they would start doing so soon?
Lance_darnell
August 28, 2009
Do you have a link to that juicy, wet piece of seductive gossip? :P
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
Yeah,now I remember,they were recruiting so they could develop for ps3 because none their current workforce has any real experience with the PS3.there is this:http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175571 and this http://www.digitalbattle.com/2009/07/03/valve-wants-to-develop-for-ps3-hasnt-found-a-good-team-yet/
Default_picture
August 28, 2009
All I read was we are not doing anythign for the PS3 :)
You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.