Originally Posted by slipstream808
You ARE joking, right?
14 hours is like a fart in the wind. Under 25 hours is very short. 25 hours and over is short. 50 and up is average. 75 is long, and over 100 is epic.
All I'm saying is bring on the average games. RPG's can be epics though. Go play some Baldur's Gate my man. THAT is a game. Epic in length but WORTH the money.
Granted we don't all play at the same rates but I am average in gameplay length.
I do say 'for an FPS' - there are not many (I can't name one) FPSes that are longer than 14 hours. Maybe that is me being ignorant.
Originally Posted by VulcanDragon
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? First you say that episodes mean you have to wait less for new content, but your very next post argues that it takes the same time to make an episode as a full game. Only one of those two positions can be true, they are basically opposite.
I am on board with the promise of episodic content, which definitely is that shorter episodes mean more frequently released, if shorter, content. But that has not panned out yet, for the most part. The Sam and Max games did a good job, but HL2 is not delivering on the promise.
And yes, it very much should take less time to create an episode as it does to create a full game. For one, the designers aren't learning a whole new game engine; they should already be pretty good with the tools at hand, so no (or less) up-front learning curve. And second, it doesn't take a mathematical proof to show that developing five hours of content takes less time and/or resources than creating 15 hours of content, quality assumed to be held equal.
Now one might argue that if it took them three years to make a 15-hour HL2 experience, expecting 12-month iterations to crank out 5-hour episodes makes perfect sense. And I won't argue that point, I'm just saying that 12-month cycle times are not what people expected when the whole episodic content idea was first introduced.
No, I'm the two work together. I said the episodes together take the same amount of time as the full game. Let me explain.
If we presume HL3 would have been HL2:E1, E2 and E3 stitched together, as one would, then what I am saying is that it would take them the same amount of time to make all three and release them as one game as it would to make them and release them separately, over the timespan. The latter way we get the content faster, as we don't have to wait for the latter parts to play the first parts.
Originally Posted by XenoRad
I don't like it that you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying.
Disregard Steam for a minute. Not all games are sold on Steam, not everybody buys from Steam, not all Episodic games will be sold on Steam...
Also you can't say I have nothing to back up my claim that episodic gaming would be cheaper when I just said that it's a general economic rule that the less you buy of something the more you pay per piece. That's how business works.
Yes, it did take Valve 6 years to make HL2 (which was a lot of time), but they had to plan the story, make the engine, make the models, make the animations, make the textures, the sounds etc.
For Episodes 1 and 2 most of those things where already done.
I'm not paying attention to what you are saying, because you are doing the same to me. I said that Steam made episodic gaming possible - that was my criterion. I'm saying unless content management systems are used, Episodic gaming will not
become mainstream. But I believe content management systems and episodic gaming will.
Yes, what you said is true, but that only applies due to economies of scale, and in game development, economies of scale don't really apply. (Or at least, not to that extent). If companies want to succeed with episodic gaming, they will have to release at reasonable prices.
And yes, you are right, HL1->HL2 was a bigger transition. But what I am saying is that if valve had made Half Life 3, it would be the episodes stitched together, in effect. So it would have taken the exact same amount of time, just without the releases.