Episodic gaming

[Mogri]

RMZ has been talking to me a lot about the lack of feedback Mr. Triangle's Maze [s]Madness[/s] (sorry, wrong game) has gotten. I think this is due in large part to the fact that it's a rerelease. It got good feedback the first time around. Unfortunately for RMZ, its release was surrounded by the release of a lot of other high-quality games.

This got me to thinking: what's the best way to go about releasing your game? Games with a shorter development cycle are easy enough to release all at once, but what about longer games? Far too often, you'll see an excellent game announced, but the author loses interest before the game is actually completed.

Along these lines, I've been considering releasing Phantom Tactics episodically. I like the discussion that the House threads get -- everyone discusses the latest installment and, I think, generates hype for the next episode.

The key difference between doing it with an interactive show like the House series and doing it with a game is the interactive component. Except for the off-chance that someone comes up with some speculation that the author decides to integrate into the game, there's no audience participation in an episodic game. I'm not sure to what extent this makes a difference.

So here's my question: would you play a game that's released episodically, or would you be more inclined to just wait until the game is finished to play it? (I mean this both in terms of Phantom Tactics and more generally!)

The other consideration is -- how different is this, really, from just releasing a more complete demo every few weeks or so? This is the typical pattern for a lot of OHR games (such as Surlaw Armageddon), except there's usually more time in between releases.

Anyway, I am interested in hearing what other people think on this subject.

[Bob the Hamster]

I haven't feedbacked on Mr Triangle's Maze because I was saving it for last.

It seems like a lot of games do get released in an episodic manner-- first demo, second demo, almost complete, complete. Actually presenting them as episodes might be a good thing.

I think that breaking a game up into episodes is often good for the story design. I think it can help the author to write the script in such a way that holds interest throughout, rather than front-loading with exposition, or end-loading with a lot of grinding before the final boss.

[JSH357]

I am releasing my latest game in episodic demo format, and hoping it is the preferable way to go about it. It certainly seems like it would be.

[Mogri]

Because of the game specifically? Or do you think it's a better format generally?

[JSH357]

Well, the game has four chapters so it seems like an intuitive choice.

Also I think it's better in general cause I hate playing demos that are just demos. Especially when they're good, because then I'm disappointed when it's just a demo.

[Delfino]

I would only suggest this for story-based games (or rather, games with a good story). However, I would not do it for any other type of game. I couldn't imagine playing episodes of a platformer or a challenge-based game like Darkmoor Dungeon.

[Momoka]

I would only suggest this for story-based games (or rather, games with a good story). However, I would not do it for any other type of game. I couldn't imagine playing episodes of a platformer or a challenge-based game like Darkmoor Dungeon.

Oh, you still could, I think. Platformers and Darkmoor are divided into sections, too, just less obviously.

Plot-wise....episodic games should have episodic plots. The episode should end with something being accomplished, not just because it's been 30 minutes. You'd have to design the game around it, too, since they player'd get all his levels and items and stuff changed every episode. (Though there are ways around it. You can have passwords for 100% completion of an episode, that could be input at the start of the next episode, so you could have multi-episode subplots/sidequest, and not have them break because the player didn't bother).

[Mogri]

You'd have to design the game around it, too, since they player'd get all his levels and items and stuff changed every episode. (Though there are ways around it. You can have passwords for 100% completion of an episode, that could be input at the start of the next episode, so you could have multi-episode subplots/sidequest, and not have them break because the player didn't bother).

If the player keeps his save file, then there's no reason why he should have to reset all his stuff.

[Momoka]

You'd have to design the game around it, too, since they player'd get all his levels and items and stuff changed every episode. (Though there are ways around it. You can have passwords for 100% completion of an episode, that could be input at the start of the next episode, so you could have multi-episode subplots/sidequest, and not have them break because the player didn't bother).

If the player keeps his save file, then there's no reason why he should have to reset all his stuff.

What, like just release an updated version of the game? I was under the impression we were talking about different short games called Episode 1, 2, etc.

I s'pose it works either way, I guess.

[Delfino]

Oh, you still could, I think. Platformers and Darkmoor are divided into sections, too, just less obviously.

What I meant to say is that although games can be divided into sections, that does not mean players will stick around for the next episode. The thing that unites a game's many faucets is the almighty Plot. If there isn't a good plot uniting your episodes, then you will have difficulty retaining players.

Plot-wise....episodic games should have episodic plots. The episode should end with something being accomplished, not just because it's been 30 minutes.

Agreed, but it's even better to end on a cliffhanger, so as to keep the player interested.