Do Episodic Games have a Future?

Telltale Games has made episode 1 of the walking dead free on Xbox Live until the 29^th December, no doubt in a bid to get us to by the other four episodes. With great critical acclaim it’s fairly certain season 2 is in the pipeline, but is it a viable move for other developers?

Telltale’s whole business model is based around making episodic games for licensed franchises. Unfortunately, very few of their previous works have been very successful, with nothing even coming close to the Walking Dead series. Other companies also haven’t had much success with episodic games, Sonic 4 only ever released two episodes neither of which were very successful. So why would anyone go for it?

Well firstly Telltale produced Tales of Monkey Island, which was very good so some positives to be gained from there. Also a large benefit of episodic games is that smaller studios don’t need to make a huge big budget blockbuster all in one go which can be very expensive for a company that has a small and not always continuous income. For audiences, each episode is significantly cheaper, sometimes similar to or less than the price of DLC for a ‘normal’ game. This is in a world where short, cheap games are becoming more popular. Smartphones and Steam have had great success selling games for low prices. It is true that gaming may be moving away from a £40 game. For these reasons, episodic games give a better opportunity, arguably, to smaller, independent developers.

Sonic 4 went episodic probably based on production costs because the return was uncertain. Sonic 3 was released back in 1994, back when he and Mario were still king. Sonic’s appeal has diminished in the years after then and so it would have been difficult to tell whether Sonic 4, a continuation form Sonic 3, would have been successful. By making it episodic, Sega didn’t have to pour millions in and could pull funding whenever they wanted.

However, Telltale’s reasons for episodic games are beyond the economic. Telltale combines their use of episodic games with other media franchises, such as the Walking Dead, Law & Order and Wallace & Gromit. These are (mostly) TV series’ and hence the games are formatted like TV series’. If you look at the video game industry, it is largely based on the film industry. Work for months, a year, two even three, then create one product that is pure, concentrated enjoyment in the space of 10-20 hours. Aside from the differing time scales, this is largely how films are made, of course games often have better replay-ability but the film industry makes money later through DVD, blu-ray and licensing to TV. Both have also found later incomes through digital distribution as DLC or through on demand services like LoveFilm or Netflix. Episodic games are more like TV series, the enjoyment is far more concentrated into a smaller time frame and it is crucial the ending hooks the audience into watching or buying the next episode, more so than it is with film. 

It is also crucial then for an episodic game to be released at set intervals, this is easy for TV thanks to a set schedule, but for games it can be harder to meet a schedule. Late Beta testing can sometimes run for longer than expected and often causes delayed releases. Some developers have mastered hitting schedules, the FIFA games by EA are always on time, though often release with countless bugs, some of which are never fixed. Telltale is also well known for hitting its schedules. By hitting a schedule people trust the developer to release the product at that time, hence they can get excited by it, hype builds and more buy the game.

I'm late, I'm late for a very important date, the next episode, my audiences aren't going to wait

Episodic games also allow for stories to remain focused and immersive. Each episode can focus on one part of the story and keep it tight. The greatest feature of the Walking Dead is how it tells its story, it is tight, immersive and hooks you. The same is true for episode 1 and 2 of Half Life 2 (though you could argue that they are DLC rather than an episodic series). The Half Life 2 episodes end on huge cliff hangers making gamers clamour for more (only for Valve then not to deliver). The fact that there was no episode 3 caused anger amongst the community since we could never find out what happened after SPOILER Alex’s dad died. END OF SPOILER. This only emphasies the point about releasing episodes on time. Some argue that Half Life 2 Episode 2 was better than the original Half Life game. The two episodes carry on the story like a TV series that follows on from a film. When writing its stories Telltale apparently works with writers on the TV series allowing for a game that is not just a poor imitation of the programme but a well thought out extension of it.

Episodic games may also invite a new group of people into gaming. Many people don’t play games because they don’t have the time to play an entire standalone title from beginning to end in a short enough time span for the story to remain fresh in your memory. However, to some playing a much shorter game in a month or in two months is much more appealing, you can easily drop in and out and it does not require constant undivided attention, in the same way watching a TV show takes up less time than watching a film.

Episodic games probably do have a future, but they are by no means a competitor to the standard game format yet. For that to happen digital distribution needs to take off (more than it already has done), probably until a large majority of the gaming community use digital downloads, which still is not the case. For many years video games have taken a format similar to films with a big blockbuster and maybe it is time to search for alternatives, after all developers have seen huge success with short games on phones, PSN and XBLA. Maybe the next step is an increase in episodic games where games take the television series model and adapt it. The model has its gains and drawbacks, TV competes well with film, so what’s to say episodic games can’t compete with stand-alone titles? Video gaming is an industry that has only been around for less than 30 years, it is still arguably finding its feet in the world and even the film industry is still changing, so a new format of games taking centre stage, stranger things have happened.

What Really Sells a Console?

The Wii U continues to lead us into the new generation of console gaming. In doing so, it arguably has no competition, though the PS3 and 360 are still selling well. As it develops, it should build momentum and begin to sell as much as and surpass the PS3 and 360. However, it is difficult to say how it will fare against the next iterations of the Xbox and PlayStation, everyone has different opinions as to what really makes a console great (or anything for that matter), hence the fanboy is born. But to normal consumers, what is really is key behind actually becoming the most successful console in a generation.

Hardware

We all think we're as cool as this guy

So let’s start by being idealist. A console is a piece of hardware at the end of the day and people want to buy the best piece of hardware. Problem is, it’s very difficult to decide what is the best. Although the sheer power of the processer and the graphics card is what often convinces people, a set of powerful CPU’s and Graphics cards don’t necessarily relate to a better experience. We all like to think we’re nerds who know an incredible amount about how video games work, so people will go by the stat that they believe best defines the technical quality of a video game. There are so many factors though, each with their own merit, that it is near impossible to decide. For example, to me the PS3 seems more powerful with better graphics, however Xbox games seem to utilise their hardware to an extent where the difference is minimal, and cue fanboy mania. A good example of high power not selling is the Atari Jaguar, it was the first ever 64-bit console, overpowering the SNES and Megadrive, nevertheless its lack of quality third party games was its demise.

Games

Let’s stay idealist and say it’s the games themselves that sell the console. This is one large reason as to why companies spend so much to keep developers loyal and force them to produce exclusive games and content. Simply having the bragging rights to say that your mate can’t play Halo or being returned by the fact that you can’t play Uncharted is enough to make many people jealous. This battle was probably most fierce between Sega and Nintendo in the early 90s when you were either a Sonic or Mario fan (go Sonic!). These were part of the reasons Nintendo gained such a foothold in the industry and also why Sega only really managed to sell the Megadrive at a competitive number. At the end of the day, consoles are made to play games and if the games are not as good on one console, then it makes little sense to buy that console. Hence, games are one of the biggest demises of consoles, countless consoles have been destroyed simply by lack of 3^rd party development, let alone 1^st party exclusives. Just look at the way hardcore gamers got frustrated with the Wii, a huge lack of quality hardcore games meant that Nintendo lost the belief of many fans, despite producing some very good first party content. The flipside is that because of the games on the Wii, it sold phenomenally well amongst casual gamers, Nintendo however employed the same system for the GameCube, which didn’t do nearly as well as the Wii, but this might be more to do with marketing.

Marketing

So onto marketing, one of the largest affecting factors, arguably. As mentioned, this was a huge part of the Wii’s success. The Wii had a very good marketing campaign, it targeted its audience heavily and effectively. It brought in a generation of casual gamers that would’ve never otherwise even have considered games. In case you hadn’t realised, marketers rule the world and anyone who denies they’ve been a victim of marketing is really the biggest victim of us all. Marketing and advertising have a huge influence on our lives, look at many of the big corporations in the world, McDonald's, Starbucks, Coca-Cola and they were all bought and made global by marketing geniuses. All industries need marketing, hence why companies spend so much on it, Hollywood regularly spends more on marketing than it does on its actual film and often doesn’t include marketing in its official budget for a film, just to save their blushes. The Wii triumphed in the way the PS1 and 2 did, they aimed their marketing at a huge market and encouraged new players to take up gaming. The day to day man doesn’t know all facts and figures about a games console and his only way of knowing anything is adverts, so he is persuaded by what advert is the best, simply because he has no other reference points. It seems clear that advert for games consoles work better on those who know less about games and maybe that’s why Microsoft has changed Xbox 360 adverts to focusing on it as an entertainment hub, i.e. focusing it towards the casual market and those who would’ve otherwise not bought a console. However it is this market who are most susceptible to another factor – price.

Price

You'll need a little more than that Luigi...

Money makes the world go round and no one ever seems to have enough of it. Consoles are expensive and people have to consider whether their investment is going to pay back. Logic dictates that a smaller price means a smaller risk and so people will consider less, and vice versa. The average tech geek or super nerd with disposable income will spend a fortune to get the latest gear and often (within reason) won’t really care what they pay for it, the computer parts industry is based on this. So, when the PS3 was released at £425, people were reluctant, those with their hearts set on PS3s didn’t care and found some way to convince themselves that they didn’t care or that £425 was reasonable. But, the average person was reluctant, especially when you could buy a Wii for £180 or a 360 for £270. Hence, the PS3 made many of its sales after the price dropped significantly in the coming months, but by then many had already bought a Wii or Xbox for Christmas and Sony had to play catch-up (for which they still haven’t caught up). The Wii being the cheapest was yet another reason for new, casual gamers to op for it, however the Wii had another trick up its sleeve.

Stocks

When the Wii released, it quickly ran out of stock and people were running around trying to desperately find one, sounds like a disaster, people want to buy, but they can’t. This failure was a huge PR success, news companies, websites, people all reporting and talking about Wii’s being out of stock. The Wii’s name was spreading everywhere and with it, Wii fever. The thought that everyone wants this so there’s none left means that it must be great, otherwise no one would want it. Eventually, there is a huge hype and everyone wants a Wii, reason goes out for a walk to see if any shop has a Wii left. Whether Nintendo put low stocks on purpose is still up for argument (though they probably did), whatever the reason, it’s a new marketing strategy that was pure genius and something the Wii U may try to emulate.

Launch Timing

Although, the Wii U may be going for the strategy which benefited the PS2 and Xbox 360, timing. Both the 360 and PS2 were the first of their generations and both gained greatly for it. The PS2 is still the world’s bestselling console for many of the reasons above. It destroyed the GameCube because it was just better and it beat the original Xbox because it came out before. When the PS2 was released it was this huge jump in technology, a piece everybody wanted, people’s faces now had curves and you could actually recognise footballers on FIFA. Being first means there is no competition and being the generation ahead, you’re better than what’s out there. Technologically, the Xbox is better than the PS2, it is more powerful and doesn’t require those pesky memory cards, not to mention the arsenal of incredible exclusives it had and later Xbox Live. But the PS2 came out first, by the time Microsoft released the Xbox, the race was over and Sony had already stolen the show, everyone had already bought a PS2, all your friends had PS2s, could you really be bothered to go and buy another console, no, not really.

The Little Things

Although, some people say it’s the little things in life that count and when you’ve weighed all the above up, it might be something small that makes the decision for you. It could be that you have to pay for Xbox Live, or that the PS3 doesn’t come with a headset or that the Wii needs a nunchuck to play most games, when there is nothing left to make your decision, it might be the smallest thing. The above are all reasons people have genuinely not opted to buy those consoles even though, paying for Xbox Live gives you a much better service, headsets for PS3 can come very cheap and you usually won’t need more than two nunchucks.

New Technology

How did I think this would be a good idea?

Then again, we all like big new fancy toys with more bells and whistles than a Victorian Locomotive.  Just look at Avatar, lots of high tech fluff, but no substance, yet it’s the biggest grossing Pocahontas remake. The whole point of a new generation is to show off new hardware, to show how technology has advanced to change our gaming experience. We continually want the most immersive experience out there and since generations don’t come too often, we will go for the piece of hardware with the best piece of hardware, we will put our bet on what we think is the future of gaming. This was the Wii’s largest selling point, never before had motion been incorporated into the gaming experience like this before, it was a completely new style that aimed to revolutionise the industry. And it’s not just entire console, Kinect sold incredibly well, despite being awful. We were convinced (mostly through marketing) that these would be the future, that standard pad controllers were over and that motion would be the ultimate revolution in the industry, how has that worked out?

In The End

At the end of the day though, all these factors come down to one big one. The competition - each of these factors only makes a difference if the competition beats you in that criterion, your console could cost a fortune, have awful games and be an awful piece of technology, but if there is no one to compete then you run away with the market. As clever as they can be, as conniving and schemeing as these companies are, the power in the end lies with us, the consumer, because when it all boils down, we are what really sells a console (cheesy, I know).

Should You Buy a Console on Release?

So the start of a new generation: the Wii U is released today here in the UK or a week ago in the US. The Wii U sold 400,000 units in the US last week, which isn’t bad, until you compare it to the 750,000 and 525,000 the Xbox 360 and PS3 sold, respectively. The issue seems to be a lack of hype. Here in the UK, advertising has been to a minimum. The adverts that have shown have been awful and seem to be still aimed at casual gamers. After being burned by the Wii, as a hardcore gamer, I’m less than impressed that the people at Nintendo seem to be forgetting us again.

So many people are left in limbo as whether to fork out £250 to buy a new console which is still unproven. Then again, there are bragging rights as to being the first to own a particular console within your group of friends. However, the novelty wears off soon and there are reasons to wait.

Firstly comes the price, at £250 the Wii U isn’t badly priced, in fact it’s pretty damn cheap, especially when considering the Xbox and PS3 are roughly £200 (if you want a real version that you can actually use). You may not have been mistaken for thinking that the Wii U is part of this generation of consoles. Nevertheless, just because it’s cheap, doesn’t necessarily mean its price won’t drop. It may be cheap now, but it could get cheaper. On the other hand, Nintendo could keep the price constant since they are already selling at a loss. The main issue here is of the $800 release price for the PS3, which subsequently dropped price, very quickly! Sony claimed that this was due to the Blu-Ray drive, so if the next Xbox or Playstation have something new and modern, that really could bump up the price. It may be worth waiting till post-Christmas, when prices (should) shoot down.

The cover of the Xbox 360 manual

Then there’s the bugs, here is most famously the case of the RED RINGS OF DEATH! Microsoft were keen to get the 360 out early, in doing so they overlooked a mechanical fault regarding the cooling of the 360. The red rings essentially meant that the Xbox would not work because it was too hot (usually), thus, it would shut down to prevent damage to its internal components. It also faced other issues such as the E74 graphics error (which I ‘caused’ to occur on my cousins Xbox). All in all, it left you with a hefty bill from Microsoft because it always happened a day after your warranty ran out. Such was the outrage, Microsoft were eventually forced to provide three years of warranty on Xbox’s (even then, I’m sure some people still got issues after 3 years and 2 days). Though this sounds like a mistake on Microsoft’s part, Sony had their own Yellow light of death which affected many (and increasing number) of original PS3s. Though this yellow light problem occurred much later in a consoles life than the red rings, it still happened and as PS3s get older, more and more are succumbing to their demise. Again, as life would have it, this would set you a hefty bill from Sony’s doors (unless of course you go to the very helpful ‘Playstation Pros’ in Bow, London). The reason to wait would be that the new crash course diet Xbox and PS3 have not reported the same problems, yet.

Now comes user interface, any operating system comes with bugs on release and consoles are no different. Though there are few major bugs, it is often wise to wait a couple of months before developers fix all the more major issues. In terms of user interface, the Xbox shipped with a dashboard that wasn’t the best. It was ugly and difficult to navigate. Fortunately, Xbox continue to update their dashboard, to keep it modern and fresh, the result being that it is the best UI on any of this generations consoles. However, it took a long time for Microsoft to perfect the formula and release the second dashboard, so it may be worth waiting to see how the UI of a console may adapt before opting to buy one. On the other hand, you could argue that Sony has not changed its UI. This is partly due to the fact that the PS3 released last of the consoles and incorporated some of the better features of the original Xbox dashboard. Though some may argue that the lack of change is because the PS3 UI works, it does now feel dated compared to the Xbox Metro( I don’t care about its legal name) UI. To be honest, it does work, but the technology sector, which is based on innovation, should not be taking a ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach.

I know Lewis Smith, I thought a Wii would be a good buy too

Finally, we have the games, this is something that caused many to regret buying a Wii. 1^st party developers can only produce so much and the bulk of a console’s game list is bulked up by 3^rd party developers. It often takes time for developers to truly understand the console and also to choose whether they want to provide long term support for the console. The Wii in its first year (or two) released several great first party games including Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy and Zelda: Twilight Princess. However, slapping Mario on every game can only take you so far and up until the release of Zelda: Skyward Sword, the Wii lacked any incredible game. In general it lacked any truly great third party game and it took some time to realise that the big developers didn’t want to develop for Wii. This left hardcore gamers outraged that their console was sitting their gaining dust, while they played a 360 or PS3 (a proper console). When the Wii released, the motion controlled seemed like something an incredible variety of games could utilise, but developers didn’t really take it well and no one but Nintendo could find an application for them outside the genre of casual party games. The same is true for Kinect, it seemed incredibly promising as Project Natale, but developers still haven’t learnt to use its motion capture abilities (thought the use of it as a microphone has become increasingly popular). In essence, it takes time for developers to learn how to use new hardware and its time that may be best spent waiting for a game that can utilise the hardware. (I write this paragraph as someone who was duped by Nintendo and Microsoft into buying a Wii and Kinect, woe is me). 

So there is some glory in having a console before all your friends, that for  a few months they will be clamouring over at your place hoping to get a glimpse. At the end of the day it’s a risk, some consoles just die out like Sega’s Saturn or Dreamcast and other just aren’t what you think they’ll become, like the Wii. Hype and excitement may take you over, but patience is a virtue, and one that may be key when dealing with the virtual world.

Half Life 3, is There any Point?

Last week was all about GTA, but some of you may have caught a glimpse on some news from Valve. They are reportedly working on a new engine, what is most probably, Source 2. For those of you who don’t know, Source is Valve’s video game engine. They have been using it since their conception and with tweaks and mods, it has even been able to survive a jump in generation. Without getting into a lot of nerdy detail, game engines are the building blocks behind a game. It is a piece of software that allows games to easily and quickly made. It is within an engine that games are created, making it easier to create physics and visual models, amongst other things. 

However, whenever Valve makes any announcement it always involves Half Life 3 speculation. If you don’t know what Half Life is, God help you. Since Half Life 2’s gripping ending in episode two, fans of the series have been clamouring away at Valve’s headquarters like the infected from Left 4 Dead, trying to get Valve to satisfy our thirst for Half Life. But yet, no luck, the last five years have been littered with all kinds of speculation of a sequel to Half Life 2 Episode 2, of which Valve has rarely commented. It seems that every E3, Gamescom and every other gaming event is filled with ideas about Valve’s appearance at the shows and what they may be unveiling. However, Half Life 3’s existence seems to be as elusive as that of the G Man.

I'm here one minute, gone the next...

Though the recent announcement of Source 2 may suggest that Half Life 3 could kick it off, the community seems to be disheartened. It would make sense that this is where Half Life 3 begins, a new generation, a new engine, just as with the original Half Life. Despite this, after five long years of anguish and disappointment, people seem to be giving up on the idea. It seems more and more likely that the game may never come, and maybe that’s the way it should be.

So maybe Half Life 3 should never be made (cue a roar from and angry mob of Valve fans at my door). Sure it sounds mad, but maybe it should stay a memory. Currently the Half Life franchise is untainted and amazing, heralding a change in the industry, a revolution. On its release some called it the greatest PC game ever made, and some would still maintain that. But making sequels is always a risk. Developers need new ideas that keep the series fresh (Modern Warfare 3 anyone?), while not angering fan-boys who love the quirks of the original. Sequels must keep current fans happy, while also attracting new ones to the franchise. This is a particular problem with strategy and simulation games, where current fans want more complexity, whereas new players want to be able to jump right in. You wouldn’t be mistaken for thinking that sequels are a cop-out in the media industry. The film studios have been using them for decades as a means to not producing totally new ideas, and video games have been doing the same.

The problem is, two factors can affect expectations of a sequel from its fans, the quality of the original and the length of time people are waiting, both of which only pile the pressure on Valve. When the original is of such a high quality, obviously people expect the sequel to be at least the quality of the previous. With Half Life 2 being called “the best PC game of all time”, its easy to see why this increases the expectation of HL3. Also, with five and soon to be six years gone by, people expect more. Technology advances, the developer continues to learn and expand on their knowledge. As people wait, they start to have imaginations and dreams of what a sequel may be like, what it may entail. Also, other high quality games come out, there is stiff competition, competition which only increases every year. We live in a world where mediocre video games no longer cut it. As fans we expect the best, and nothing less.

"Look Daddy, another modern time, realistic, fast-paced FPS"

We’ve seen games not live up to their hype, not make quite the same impact as the sequel. When the Modern Warfare part of the Call of Duty series was released, it was a huge hit (and still is). It changed the landscape of first person shooters just as Halo had done before it. It made modern, realistic gun fights cool and brought in shoot, quick kill, kill another million style play. Yet alas, after Modern Warfare 2, the quality dipped. Both Treyarch and Infinity Ward failed to innovate as they had before, the genre they had made popular had enveloped them, and turned them into “just another FPS”. Black Ops and MW3 were nowhere near to the standards of their predecessors, with Black Ops II having mixed reviews as to whether it has revitalised the franchise.

Games that have suffered from long waits have also suffered in poor quality. Most recently and notably appears to be Duke Nukem (it took) Forever (to come out). Duke Nukem 3D had a strong fan base back in the 90s and Duke Nukem Forever was an inevitability. However, problem, after problem, after problem meant DNF was almost dead and buried, never to see the light of day again. Of course, someone thought it right to bring it back, just as it was conceived back in the dawn of the dinosaurs. DNF was released as if it was supposed to be released ten years ago. The physics were clunky, the gameplay was dated and the ideas just weren’t fresh. The problem with making a game that was originally thought of a long time ago, is that it comes out as that game. Since the video game market is so dynamic, you just can’t do that.

The odds are stacked against Valve if they really do decide to make Half Life 3 (I’m not holding my breath for it though), chances are something about the game will mean it doesn’t have the same effect as Half Life 2. The probability is that it won’t impact the industry in the same way. The likelihood is, is that it won’t be the game we were expecting. But if there’s any company that can pull it off, it’s one that is dynamic, one that manages to stay ahead of the game, one that lives up to expectations. It’s the company that brought you Portal, Team Fortress and Left 4 Dead. It’s the company that revitalised PC gaming with Steam. If I’m to trust any developer to give Half Life 3 the justice it deserves, I’m glad it’s Valve.