| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Poll Results, Comments and New Poll |
|
The last poll looked at the ideal length for a cRPG and the results are pretty clear: you like 'em long. Over 100 hours held first place unequivocally with over 45% of the votes. The next was 40-60 hours with 25% over 60-80 hours at 16.5%, indicating that after those that like them as long as possible, the next camp is looking for a "sweet spot". 20 - 40 hours came in at 9% and under 20 hours didn't register a single vote.
<br>
<br>Accompanying the poll was a <a href="http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10077&newsid=44062" target="_blank">Side Quest</a> that looked at the limited time some gamers have and how designers might incorporate design changes to accomodate this. Quite a few comments were made along the lines of "a game should be as long as the design requires", which seems like pretty solid wisdom.
<br>
<br>While we are still on the subject of the length of games, a couple of designer comments happened to hit the web this week that might be worth a look.
<br>
<br>Epic designer Cliff Bleszinski made these <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1515122/20051128/index.jhtml?headlines=true" target="_blank">comments</a> to MTV.com (thanks <a href="http://ve3d.ign.com/" target="_blank">VE3D</a>) on the subject of costs and pricing:<blockquote><em>Still, the historical context doesn't pacify Bleszinski. "I'm a fairly successful video game designer who can afford a lot of $50 games," he said. "But there's a psychological barrier that I have there with a game that stinks that I spent $50 on. [It] still stings."
<br>
<br>So he doesn't want $60. He doesn't want $50. "I would kill to have a [top-quality] game that's jam-packed with an amazing story and amazing moments and four hours long and costs 20 bucks." He said it's possible, if only the industry cut costs by making games shorter and sweeter, but that too many gamers and publishers demand 20-hour games that are filled with the padding of having gamers repeat the same tasks again and again.</em></blockquote>
<br>
<br>It's worth noting that Cliff is an action designer, which may change his perspective...quite separately iHobo's Chris Bateman (Kult: Heretic Kingdoms) <a href="http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2005/12/tv_episodes_in_.html" target="_blank">talked about structuring games for episodic content</a>:<blockquote><em>All this leads to the obvious conclusion: if we could make games that were structured in TV season structure, we would be a step closer to the goal of producing episodic content - something many people in the games industry see of something of a grail at the moment. If your core game consists of, say, 3-4 episodes, you can then supply new episodes on (for instance) a monthly schedule (perhaps providing the first one for free). Then you can have the economic model of an MMORPG, but without the insane infrastructure costs. Not to mention you can spread your development costs, and consequently your risk. (You'd want to be using middleware, because you couldn't afford to be developing a custom engine).</em></blockquote>
<br>
<br>I'd be interested to hear what our audience thinks of episodic content, so feel free to throw in some comments as well as anything you want to say on the new poll, which is on your preferred point-of-view.
<br>
<br>The only two examples of episodic content I can think of off the top of my head have met mixed results. I doubt developers can deliver at the pace of one episode per month - are you prepared to digest that epic RPG in small chunks over several months or even years? |
Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:08 pm |
|
|
fatBastard()
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 40
Location: Denmark |
I'm sure developers/publishers would have a field day if episodic games becomes popular but as a gamer I'm not too keen on the idea:
1) Presently it takes several years to produce a 10+ hour game, so unless episodic development procedures are able to significantly reduce the total production time, we would most likely end up with either a decent sized episode every 3-6 months or an extremely short episode once a month.
2) As with television shows, episodic games risk being cancelled ahead of completion unless each and every episode does well in terms of sales (nevermind quality. Only money talks in this case). Just thinking about this issue brings flashes of the Jefferson and Van Buren projects and those didn't even leave the drawing board so to speak. I get a cold sweat just imagining being 2/3 through Fallout 3 only to find out that I'll never be able to finish the game because the publisher pulled the plug.
3) Again as with television shows, episodic games risk falling into the all too common trap of trying to "ride the wave" even when the sea is calm. There are countless examples of shows, books and movie franchises being drawn out way beyond their breaking point often resulting in an anti climatic ending (if there even is an ending instead of a cancellation). In other words: With episodic procedures it is all to easy for the investors to pressure the developers to turn an, let's say, 5 episode game into a 10 (or more) episode game if they smell a profit, regardless of whether or not the actual content is suited for 10 episodes instead of 5.
4) In order to preserve the consumers interest in the game I can easily imagine the return of the "Cliff-hanger" gimmick. Depending upon what genre the game is I can see how this could be an effective trick to use, but if we take point number 1 into consideration I don't really think I'm going to be too pleased when I either know I have to wait 3-6 months for the cliff-hanger "release" or know that after only an hour or two of playing I have to wait another month for the release.
5) Replayability. Normally I'm more interested in one superb playing experience than several good run throughs, but I also know that many people weighs replayability higher than I do. How do you replay a game that isn't finished yet? Do you wait until the whole game is finished before starting over? ... this could lead to the "loss" of many customers in the wait between the episodes simply because they've found something else in the meantime. Or perhaps you replay the particular episode until the next one comes along? ... this could easily lead to a pressure to introduce new gameplay mechanics in every episode (for certain genres that is) in order to keep the gameplay experience fresh. However that could in turn lead to longer development cycles and higher risk if a new gameplay mechanic fails to please the audience.
6) Bugs. It is hard enough to make a product an remove most of the bugs (as I'm sure you can all attest to in your time as gamers) and it sometimes takes several months until the worst problems have been ironed out and sometimes not even by then and we have to put our faith in fanbased patches. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen when the developers are busy working on the next episode mere hours after the latest one has been released. Not only is there a risk of new bugs being introduced for every episodic release but it is also very likely that removal of existing bugs will take second place to the release of a new episode.
Now I know that I've long since gone from being a "the glass is half empty" kind of guy and instead started to accuse the person next to me of drinking from my glass when I wasn't looking  but while I can see many reasons for developers and publishers/investors to embrace the episodic approach to game development I'm really hard pressed to come up with any advantages for the consumers.
_________________
Signature? ... erm ... nope, can't think of one. |
|
Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:30 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I think its a fantastic idea. I love this.
Some people are big on a concept called, "Revenge of the Animals." Where if you eat meat it raises your choloestorol, gives you heart problems, etc.
I view this the same way. Revenge of the Animals. People value graphics over content, gameplay, etc. You support games that are short and stupid as long as the graphics are like totally tubular. You support gameplay geared to folks with a lower threshhold of learning and short attention spans. Reap what you sow you damn animals.
Indie devs are still going to make games I like that are long, and continue to value content and gameplay over graphics. This will not impact me at all and I absolutley love the idea. ABSOLUTLEY. Great idea. i love it.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:26 pm |
|
|
gympion
Guest
|
Firstly, I completely agree with everything fatBastard says..
Quite simply, I think the idea of episodic games only really applies to action games. An episodic RPG would imo be a terrible idea, as these games are as much about building an overall atmosphere and world as they are about running through levels. For example, imagaine if Gothic had only allowed you to run around the old town until the next episode came out and that opened the swampcamp... it would've destroyed the game entirely. And who wants an episodic adventure game, given that these games are all about telling a story, it'd be a bit crap if they cut the game half way through.
I do think that games are incredibly overpriced at the moment but honestly what do you reckons better value? $50 for Oblivion with 200+ hours of content, or $20 for 4 hours of a great FPS?
I think the first real test of episodic games will be when SIN Episodes is released (later this year?) on Steam. I will be very interested to see how long this is, whether it finishes on a cliffhanger, and how long it'll be until episode 2 comes out. Oh, and if it'll get canned after episode 1 or 2... |
|
Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:47 pm |
|
|
Shimbatha
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Feb 2002
Posts: 78
Location: Jersey Shore |
First of all, to solve the "problem" of the desire for long games combined with the desire for cheap games...we have to admit that 50 bucks is too little. Yes, you heard me right, the price of games has to go up. I would say that games should float around the 65-75 range. This isn't a collector's edition price either (Which is a whole other can of worms), this is the price that should be paid so that the game designers can be given more room to do what they want. Also, it gives them what they deserve for making the game for us in the first place.
Now, my belief is this: If we pay more for the game, then the company making it expects more revenue...meaning they spend more time with it. That means lower possibility of game-ending bugs, longer quest, and possibly even more gameplay depth. Basic economics...you pay more, you get more. Not always, of course, but usually. This would have the wonderful side effect of making gaming an "adult" hobby, not one whose trends are decided by a bunch of teenagers using mommy's credit card.
Secondly, about the episodic content: It stinks. Period. Want to know why?
Let's say Baldur's Gate 3 comes out that way. You download "Chapter one and two" of the game from the retail CD and after two weeks (Possibly less, I beat all of BG2 in that amount of time) you come to the "To be continued" screen. Well, since game designers are still making games for the common, average, casual gamer in their pathetic attempt to get grandmas to game, you won't see them rushing to accomodate fast, skilled gamers like ourselves. Also, there will be playtesting, bug crunching, and tweaking involved before it is released. So inevitably, you'll be waiting a couple of months inbetween each "chapter". Or, if Valve is to be believed, even more. Since I've heard from them that SiN will have a waiting time inbetween chapters of about 3 months.
Also, I'm the type of gamer that moves on very fast. If I, for some reason, do not play an RPG for about a week or more, I begin to lose interest in it entirely. I find myself unable to remember where to go, or what I was doing at the time I left. I also find it hard to go back to after such a long vacation, because the game feels old to me. This happened with Divine Divinity...and it took me a whole year until I was able to get the desire to finish it after having gone on a vacation with my wife for a week.
Bottom line? Stay away from episodic content and just raise the average price of games to 70 bucks. |
|
Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:58 pm |
|
|
magerette
Village Dweller
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1
|
Episode style a la tv could function in certain types of games I suppose--this month's new content for a sim or some such, but the faults listed by the previous posters are all too apparent when it comes to RPGs.
But the concept of additional game content available from time to time for RPGs is already in place--i.e.,the Sequel, the Expansion, the Patch, even the Mod. A blending of the "episode" and "expansion" modes might work out quite well. You play BG1 knowing that 3-6 months later there will definitely be a TOSC, followed by a BGII, etc. each a valid(more or less) gaming experience in itself. I think this might be a successful way to set up a new franchise--if developers and publishers could live up to their promises. It would be very easy to default. |
|
Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:48 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I'd love to see episodic content!
Just imagine a crpg built on the same basis as big pnp campaigns, where each adventure ties in to a wider picture, to differing degrees. Give me a town (say - Hommlet-sized), the ability to pick up a few sidequests and one "major" location (say: the moathouse in ToEE) and then release a new adventure for my party to tackle every couple of months for a fee - or even on a subscription basis. With every installment, certain changes happen to the town/hub (new npc's, people moving, gossip et c) so you feel like the character's around you actually evolve.
I'm certain that done right - it could be great.  |
|
Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:40 pm |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Just in the comments here, it's pretty easy to see the downfall of an episodic approach- pacing. You've got powergamers that complete a "real game" in two days and you've got old farts like me that are lucky to complete the same game in two years. You'll never be able to find a pace to please anyone--in fact, you'll piss off almost everyone, whatever you pick.
Additionally, you'll find some gamers will wait for the entire series to be out before buying any of them just so they can control the pace. If enough people do that, early sales returns will be poor and the series might get cancelled right in the middle.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:20 am |
|
|
evil_lemming
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 38
|
I cant really see an episodic approch to cRPGs working for anyone for pretty much the same reasons in the posts above this one, the closest and perhaps best method of doing something like this for cRPGs is the way BioWare's Live team are making and selling mods for NWN. Small but COMPLETE games for a resonable price seem like a good idea and could be ideal for experamention(sp) as less developement time and costs would (I hope) breed new ideas. |
|
Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:15 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
You damn filthy apes. Epidoses is were it is at. Or as one poster suggested, jack the prices up a lot. $80 bucks a game. I'm on board.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:28 am |
|
|
The Hulk
Avenger, Defender
Joined: 19 Feb 2002
Posts: 728
Location: Southeast U.S.A. |
quote:
Originally posted by Shimbatha
First of all, to solve the "problem" of the desire for long games combined with the desire for cheap games...we have to admit that 50 bucks is too little. Yes, you heard me right, the price of games has to go up. I would say that games should float around the 65-75 range. This isn't a collector's edition price either (Which is a whole other can of worms), this is the price that should be paid so that the game designers can be given more room to do what they want. Also, it gives them what they deserve for making the game for us in the first place.
Now, my belief is this: If we pay more for the game, then the company making it expects more revenue...meaning they spend more time with it. That means lower possibility of game-ending bugs, longer quest, and possibly even more gameplay depth. Basic economics...you pay more, you get more. Not always, of course, but usually. This would have the wonderful side effect of making gaming an "adult" hobby, not one whose trends are decided by a bunch of teenagers using mommy's credit card.
Bottom line? Stay away from episodic content and just raise the average price of games to 70 bucks.
I hate to say it, but if the industry standard moves up to 75-80 bucks a game, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens now. Publishers will force games out the door early, with lots of bugs and still expect people to buy the games just like they do now, while the game developers get angry and sad that they weren't given enough time to finish working on a game and they watch as the game sites and gaming mags trash their games and give them poor reviews, tearing them up inside with anguish and making them wish they could self-publish as well as develop(like Bethesda Softworks did)and get all the time they needed to create the A list games they know they could make if given enough time, or else find a new line of work.
Publishers like EA who are famous for shoving games out the door early, much to the anger and sadness of developers who work under them(Richard Garriott is still angry and sad due to that even though he doesn't like to admit it, what was to be his final masterpiece, Ultima 9 was forced out early and tons of cool features were cut out of the game because of EA(Electronic Arts) meddling in its development and forcing him to make changes to it he that didn't want to. I feel his pain)would love to have the extra income while not spending any more money on development.
Games wouldn't necessarily get any longer either. I don't see any way you could get the entire industry, or even most of it to give more bang for the buck, better and longer games for increased price. You know there would be unscrupulous companies like we have now, taking the customers for fools and shoving poor excuses for games out the door and raking in the cash, laughing all the way to the bank, while laughing at the stupidity of their customers.
I recall reading an article where someone high up at EA said something to the effect of, "We could put dog feces into a box and put some cool artwork onto it and ship it and it would still sell well". After hearing that and what happened with Ultima 9, I refuse to buy anything from EA. I know, EA isn't the only unscrupulous publisher out there, there are others for sure, but EA seems to be the worst.
_________________
"Mr. Magee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
-Bruce Banner
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild= |
|
Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:59 am |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
There are quite a few shareware developers who tried this idea. But it didn't work very well for any of them. Aside from the obvious reasons like what pace someone plays etc etc there is another big problem.
Take a game with a lot of freedom, how will you make that episodic? it's close to impossible making something like that episodic. Because it forces a very linar story and approach, as you can not visit any part of the next episode while playing the first one. |
|
Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:05 pm |
|
|
doctor_kaz
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 108
Location: West Virginia, USA |
100+ hours? A bit too long for me. Deus Ex, Gothic, Kotor, and Vampire: tMB were perfect length for me. About 40-50 hours (a bit less for Deus Ex). That seems to be the sweet spot where developers can balance good production values with lots of content. I think after that, the game gets a bit repetitive, and I'm usually ready to finish the game if it goes longer than that. I look back and the 40 or 50 hour mark is where I started to get bored with Morrowind. But there are some games that have lasted longer that I have usually liked, Baldurs Gate 2 being #1. I think that a game can be great under 20 hours if its price is discounted a bit and if it's done right. Fable and Beyond Good and Evil are a couple examples of this. (If you count BG&E as an RPG).
I do like how nobody voted for the under 20 hours though. I guess this means that most people don't agree with Warren Spector that people want shorter games. 
Episodic content is somewhat of an interesting idea, but I dont' think that it would work too well with RPG's for two reasons:
1. A majority of the work probably goes into the engine, combat system, AI, etc. Stuff that applies everywhere, so it's all done before the game is released. If you're 80% done with a game, why not get 100% done and release it all at once?
2. An RPG that's open-ended in any way would be hampered by having to close off certain areas.
I also agree that I'm ready to pay more for a great, long RPG. I'd pay $70+ for Oblivion if I can get more than 50 great hours out of it. Same goes with Dragon Age or Gothic 3.
Last edited by doctor_kaz on Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:05 pm |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
quote:
I look back and the 40 or 50 hour mark is where I started to get bored with Morrowind
You can complete Morrowind in 12 minutes. |
|
Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:07 pm |
|
|
doctor_kaz
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 108
Location: West Virginia, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by GothicGothicness
quote:
I look back and the 40 or 50 hour mark is where I started to get bored with Morrowind
You can complete Morrowind in 12 minutes.
Heh, how true. |
|
Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
