Valve has an excellent track record of bundling related products, keeping older products available, and updating aging games to keep them relevant and up-to-date.

You are wrong about the last one. Valve doesn't update its older games in terms of modernizing them. Even its Source engine editions of Half-Life 1 and deathmatch are simply the same graphics and gameplay of the original versions. And, that is going to be the problem with episodic releases versus a normal full length game. With a traditional game, the entire thing has a uniform look and behavior because it is all built upon the same code. With episodes even if you wait to get all of them at once, the first ones are most likely going to look and play much differently than the latter ones due to evolving technology, and that is a major factor in ruining the continuity of the experience.

Digital distribution in general will be a huge enabler for this... limited shelf space caused limited game availability. This is no longer a factor.

It's still a factor and shelf space is not the only reason why. Game companies simply don't want to support their older titles especially as compatibility issues arise over time due to hardware, driver, and OS upgrades.

I know of several people who PAY iTunes $2.99 per tv show episode. I've heard that iTunes' TV section is doing brisk business. So people tolerate getting one episode at a time pretty well, as far as I can see.

But, they aren't waiting six month to a year or more between episodes. People may be paying for episodes in some cases, but they certainly won't tolerate long waits between them if they are paying. That is my point.

Unlike TV you can enjoy it whenever you want, because you own it.

If you record the show, you can watch it multiple times as well although I doubt many people would want to do that.

This is not a good criticism of Ep1 (in my opinion) because Episode 1 had a longer and more involved plot and a more satisfying ending.

I haven't played HL2 EP1, so certainly it could vary amongst different games. But, usually I can't think of any game I have ever played that I enjoyed where I would want to be forced to stop playing after two or three hours and then wait months or years to continue playing it.

Perhaps a better comparison than TV shows might be movie series. Episodic games are similar to the LotR movies, or the second and third Matrix sequals. There are many months between the releases, but that's a ton faster than the typical hollywood schedule, which gave us series like "Star Wars" with three years between each part.

Except the big difference with movie sequels is that they are still complete movies in length on their own. The stories may be a continuation, but they are still the full two or three hours of any other full length movie. These game episodes are not. They are about one-third of the length of a normal full length game (at about one-half of the discounted price).

episodic games are an unknown, but the developers are shooting for the same target.

Well they may be shooting for that, but they are missing badly hence the subject of this thread.

You seem to object to the idea entirely, assuming that it will be done poorly, and therefor it is a horrible idea.

That is because the idea is fundamentally flawed in both price and execution. The customer pays more, and he still doesn't receive the true uniform and continuous experience that he would from a traditional game.

This comment was edited on Nov 14, 14:39.

Historically the video game industry as a whole does a very poor job of keeping older titles available for sale.

Given the expense it is highly unlikely that earlier episodes will be updated to conform to the quality and features found in later episodes

I'm not talking about the industry as a whole... I'm talking about Valve and Half Life episodes. If you want to generalize this off into some rant about episodes in general, fine, but that really has nothing to do with what I'm discussing.

Valve has an excellent track record of bundling related products, keeping older products available, and updating aging games to keep them relevant and up-to-date. Digital distribution in general will be a huge enabler for this... limited shelf space caused limited game availability. This is no longer a factor.

First, people tolerate the delay with television episodes because it is free.

I know of several people who PAY iTunes $2.99 per tv show episode. I've heard that iTunes' TV section is doing brisk business. So people tolerate getting one episode at a time pretty well, as far as I can see.

Second, with television shows the viewer usually only waits a week for the next one. With video games the wait is many months or even a year or more between episodes.

This is a valid point. However, since you own the first episode nothing prevents you from having fun playing it again just before episode 2 comes out. Unlike TV you can enjoy it whenever you want, because you own it.

Third, the video game playing experience takes longer than that of a television show. Thirty minutes or an hour into a television show and you have seen the plot develop and conclude. So, the wait is more tolerable because the viewer is left with a sense of completion after the episode.

This is a valid criticism of Sin Episodes, since they ended with a cliffhanger after a very short and unfullfilling plot. This is not a good criticism of Ep1 (in my opinion) because Episode 1 had a longer and more involved plot and a more satisfying ending.

Perhaps a better comparison than TV shows might be movie series. Episodic games are similar to the LotR movies, or the second and third Matrix sequals. There are many months between the releases, but that's a ton faster than the typical hollywood schedule, which gave us series like "Star Wars" with three years between each part.

Movies are a two hour experience... episodic games run 4-6 hours. Movies in 'fast release' (LotR, Matrix 2 & 3) are six months to a year apart... episodic games are an unknown, but the developers are shooting for the same target. Each part of a movie series has a satisfying ending, but also obvious open threads that lead to the next episode... ditto for episodic games.

I think we just don't see eye to eye on this. I have no problem with the concept of episodic games, as long as they're worth my money. You seem to object to the idea entirely, assuming that it will be done poorly, and therefor it is a horrible idea. That's a rather silly reason to object to an idea.

"Bah, that wheel isn't even CLOSE to round. Wheels are a stupid invention, we'll never be able to make them better, we should go back to using sledges."

You have the OPTION of taking long breaks between the content... or, you could just buy all 3 episodes as a combo deal (which you know will happen) when they're all released.

First, there is no guarantee that all of the episodes will be available as a package. Historically the video game industry as a whole does a very poor job of keeping older titles available for sale. Second, if the initial episode(s) sells poorly, it is highly unlikely that any further episodes will even be made. And, while that might be a good thing in some cases, it isn't necessarily so. The history of video games is littered with examples of good and even some great games which weren't commercially successful. Had those games been released as episodic content, their entirety would never have been available.

You get the entire story at once, with the first parts of the story having the advantage of having been bugfixed and improved since they were first released

Given the expense it is highly unlikely that earlier episodes will be updated to conform to the quality and features found in later episodes especially if many months or even years pass between releases (which is very likely given how lengthy game development is). So, the customer doesn't get a uniform experience with episodic releases as he would with a complete game released all at once.

at the price of about a normal full length game, after waiting about as long as a normal full length game.

This has yet to be seen, but I am skeptical that the price of the parts as a set will be no more than a typical complete game.

any more than you'd whine at TV shows for only giving you a single episode per week.

First people tolerate the delay with television episodes because it is free. With video games customers are paying for content per episode so they expect and deserve more than a "come back in six months or a year to see what happens next." Second, with television shows the viewer usually only waits a week for the next one. With video games the wait is many months or even a year or more between episodes. Third, the video game playing experience takes longer than that of a television show. Thirty minutes or an hour into a television show and you have seen the plot develop and conclude. So, the wait is more tolerable because the viewer is left with a sense of completion after the episode. With a video game, you might spend three or six times that long just to get past a few levels and still be only at the initial stages of the story. Pulling the rug out from the player at that point simply ruins the continuity of the experience.

This comment was edited on Nov 13, 18:16.

Sorry JaZeeL about my misunderstanding. You're right, I did pull that number out of my ass. But having read many developer diaries and followed the creation of games over the years, I think it's a pretty good back of the napkin value for a typical full-length game (as compared to a B title, like the typical movie tie in).

You complain that the consumer "has to take really long breaks just to see all of it so there is no continuity in the gameplay experience." I disagree. You have the OPTION of taking long breaks between the content... or, you could just buy all 3 episodes as a combo deal (which you know will happen) when they're all released. You get the entire story at once, with the first parts of the story having the advantage of having been bugfixed and improved since they were first released, at the price of about a normal full length game, after waiting about as long as a normal full length game.

Episodic releases give you choices. You can watch one show per week, or you can buy the DVD or watch the weekend marathon after the whole series is out... your choice. Don't bitch at game makers because they're offering an alternative delivery mechanism... any more than you'd whine at TV shows for only giving you a single episode per week. If you prefer to get whole seaosons on DVD (like me), then just wait.

Ah Riley...

Still belittling people for their personal preferences, eh?

An episode every 9 months, with $15 profit, is better than a game every 3 years, with $40 profit. Regular money, regular engine upgrades, they stay in the news... there's a ton of benefits.

To the developer, sure there are those benefits. But, the consumer gets the shaft because he is paying more for what amounts to "warmed-over content," AND he has to take really long breaks just to see all of it so there is no continuity in the gameplay experience.

anything under $20 is effectively free

Then you should send me $19.99 on a regular basis.

my primitive impulse-buy brain

You hit the nail on the head there. And it sounds like you used your own head as the hammer.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 16:31.

Third, having two professionally made, extremely balanced, beautifully decorated maps per year is about 2 more than most games get 3 years after they are released. Most games are lucky to get a patch for a critical bug 3 years after the developer has moved on.

LOL! That is simply because unlike Valve's games most come with more than a few maps at the time of release. Customers don't have to wait three years for them.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 19:57.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then because this is all opinion.

Oh, and I wasn't referring to your 2 years remark about map making, I was referring to your 3 years remark in the following paragraph...it seemed like you arbitrarily pulled that number out of nowhere.

Where's the 3 years thing coming from?

QuakeWorld came out in 1997, just after Quake (in mid '96). Before Quake, there were no fully 3d games, so no fully 3d map makers. And I said 'two' years, not 3, because the TF community started to decline around mid '98, two years after Quake was released. At the peak of the community, then, 3d map making had been around for two years.

I admit that I had forgotten QW allowed dynamic downloading. It took so long that I always quit out and found the map on a website instead.

And the maps nowadays are far better than the crap made then... even the simplistic ones. There are a ton of Counter Strike: Source maps that are only marginally more detailed than an old Quake map. But even those maps are far better designed (usually) as far as gameplay is concerned than the crap that we often put up with way back when.

Raven

Source is not obsolete. What they did was ignore certain video card features (like native HDR support) and use shaders to calculate the same math in the shader portion of the video card. Essentially, Valve kept themselves from being dependant on the hardware and drivers by using shader programming instead.

That does not make them obsolete, it makes them flexible. For nearly a year they were the only HDR game that could have anti-aliasing AND HDR on at the same time because of their approach... not till the newest video card drivers were released did HDR and FSAA become possible at the same time.

Their shadows are behind the times, as well as their decal technology. Other games have different tradeoffs... there is no 'one true way', and anyone who claims otherwise is selling something (or is a fanboy).

Raven

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Maps COULD be downloading dynamically through QW...what world did you live in? It was FASTER to quit the game and go download the map, sure (I did that quite a lot), but you could go take a break and sit back and you'd load in fine. The more popular servers probably ran 2fort5 exclusively, yes, but there were easily found servers (my fav was Primer & Assman's) that ran anything BUT 2fort5 and stayed full.

As far as the quality of the maps, sure, there were some bad maps, but that's still the case today. The beauty of it all back then was that you could make a decent map in a fraction of the amount of time that it takes you to make a decent map today (and a fraction of the knowledge) -- simply because map making in general was much more simplistic (you had less options), and it made it all more about gameplay and much less about aesthetics.

Where's the 3 years thing coming from? We're referring to a brand new product. Further, if you're content with such a narrow selection of maps, you were probably one of those who played 2fort4/2fort5 into monotony.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 12:49.

Valve thought the episodes would be a cash-cow for them but if they cant release episodes every 4 months, it is not gonna work out for them.

An episode every 9 months, with $15 profit, is better than a game every 3 years, with $40 profit. Regular money, regular engine upgrades, they stay in the news... there's a ton of benefits.

I was mildly disappointed with Ep1, but not very... as Tycho of Penny-Arcade says, anything under $20 is effectively free as far as my primitive impulse-buy brain is concerned.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 12:48.

Speaking as a longtime fan of QWTF (I was in the clan Dark Vengenace), I have to say that you're completely wrong.

First, way back when maps could not be downloaded dynamically. If a server put up a new map, you had to quit the game, find their website, download the map pack, and then rejoin... so very few people even bothered, and they just played on the same 6 maps.

Second, the quality of the maps was horrendously spotty. Not that maps are so much better now, but there is a vastly larger community of mapmakers, paid and hobby, who now have years of experience under their belts. In 1997 and '98, when TF was at its peak, 3d map making tools had been available for a grand total of TWO years.

Third, having two professionally made, extremely balanced, beautifully decorated maps per year is about 2 more than most games get 3 years after they are released. Most games are lucky to get a patch for a critical bug 3 years after the developer has moved on.

I'm sorry, but while I too am uncertain whether TF2 will be worthwhile, I think your reasons for distrusting it are specious at best.

Yeah, TF2 will probably be entertaining, but I don't expect it to be just as good QWTF. I don't think it's possible to have the thriving community flooded with user-made maps of varying and unique themes that QWTF had (and of server admins who actually use them and a community of players willing to download them to play on said servers...the original was a mod that you had to download in the first place, so this wasn't such a big deal). TF2's probably going to get old really fast because it'll probably come with 3 maps, and Valve will be forever slow in releasing more (at the rate of maybe 2 per year).

I can see how TF2 might delay things, considering its latest incarnation seems to be yet another qwTF clone. Only this time it has shiny new graphics! Oh, wait...


TF clone maker's check list:

• game design from 10 years ago
• map layouts from 10 years ago
• miss the finer points of gameplay that made the original so good
• shiny new graphics

All of that may be true, but as a coding and graphic artist ig-no-ray-moose, I find that it makes great looking games. I like the way it looks. Isn't it all about the way it's used?

Yes, nice and shiny on the outside, fake and staged on the other side. Potekim would have proud of Valve if he still lived.

Is Valve run by caffeinated 12-year-olds? My son can meet deadlines better than these yokels.

3 episodes in 18 months! You only have to wait six months!

*giggles*

Episodic content For Teh Win!

Creston

Edit : Oh well. Back to homework.

Do not speak such blasphemy! What you MEANT to say was "Oh well. Back to homewoRLD."

This comment was edited on Nov 10, 23:57.

The whole Source engine is a deeply flawed, bug-ridden and obsolete engine. Every single game which builds on the Source engine proves it down to the core. There is so much wrong with Valve design that I'm wondering why any developer can be so foolish to choose the Source engine for its project.

Fortunately for Valve, the Source engine looks somewhat decent eventhough the engine was already outdated before it shipped, so some people might get fooled that the Source engine might be a nice engine. It's build around hacks and instead of fixing the fundamental wrong design decisions Valve took years ago, they are adding more buggy, unneeded stuff.

All of that may be true, but as a coding and graphic artist ig-no-ray-moose, I find that it makes great looking games. I like the way it looks. Isn't it all about the way it's used?