Episodic games.

[kinougames]

I had a rather specific question about episodic games.

Let's say a game is in two parts. You meet a bunch of characters in the first one, but not all of the characters reach a resolution and at least one ending is a direct, cliffhanger-like lead in to the second game. Gameplay for both is pretty full. Both have about 6 endings, including the good and bad ones. Let's say that each game takes about 7 hours on first run-through, and about 10-12 to complete all the endings.

Would you be satisfied with just the first? Would you feel you had to play both? In the event that you only played the second, would a summary of the first be sufficient enough? How would you feel about passing information from the first to the second game for unlockables? (Assuming that the game is otherwise to your tastes/interests.)

[Ghurdrich]

Well, to answer your questions directly (I don't have the time to go into much detail right now)...

-I would possibly be satisfied with the first game, but that would only be in the case of the second game not being available to me. Like, if you pulled a 'Oh yeah, sorry, project was dropped' I'd say 'Well, meh. Okay. I got what I wanted.' But if the second game is available, I'd definitely play it.

-I probably wouldn't just play the second, in all honesty. It sort of ruins things for me. However, in the event that I did, then yes, I'd want to go back and play the first. A summary definitely wouldn't be enough. I'd miss all the subtle nuances and all that good stuff.

-I always sort of enjoy games that unlock things if you've played a previous one, because I usually have, and it makes me feel like an elitist :p

And, well, there's the short answers to your questions. I may elaborate a bit more when I get home.

[Topagae]

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."

[kinougames]

It's a whole lot of effort to transfer stuff to the second game, but much more immersive because I really get attached to my characters. I truly loved how many hundreds of little throwbacks to quests from Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 had.

So yes, you would play both and you'd be interested in a transfer...?

[Topagae]

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."

[kinougames]

For me, it would turn it into simply a longer game. Breaking it up like that would really require a good and creative summary in the second, just in case someone randomly stumbles across it.

Right, I'm well aware of the possibilities, which is why I asked here to get an idea of what people would do for a game like the above.

[Topagae]

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."

[kinougames]

(Assuming that the game is otherwise to your tastes/interests.)

That's why I included this.

[Mirage]

I personally think it's better not to announce that the first game is going to end with cliff hanger that leads to a second game. Many games left their game with plenty room for sequels. Calling it a sequel sounds much better than calling it a two parter. Some people may fear the second game never going to be completed, or that they will think twice before buying just because they may need to get the 2nd one too, etc.

About transfer, I have a mixed feeling about it. I have played Suikoden 2, but I never played the 1st one. The transfer thing they have there is useless to me, so I was never able to complete the game. It's one the thing that irk me the most about the game. On the other hand, I can see it as an incentive for people to try the first game.

[jack_norton]

I never used any "character transfer" from a game to the next.
I've made two episodinc games (Heileen and Vera) but they can be played as stand-alone games. Leaving a cliffhanger on the 1st... don't know, I think as customer I would feel a bit cheated. Personal tastes of course. You should do a survey

[Topagae]

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."

[kinougames]

I personally think it's better not to announce that the first game is going to end with cliff hanger that leads to a second game. Many games left their game with plenty room for sequels. Calling it a sequel sounds much better than calling it a two parter. Some people may fear the second game never going to be completed, or that they will think twice before buying just because they may need to get the 2nd one too, etc.

About transfer, I have a mixed feeling about it. I have played Suikoden 2, but I never played the 1st one. The transfer thing they have there is useless to me, so I was never able to complete the game. It's one the thing that irk me the most about the game. On the other hand, I can see it as an incentive for people to try the first game.

What if it were like the .hack series? Each game worked by itself, but you don't figure out all the loose ends until the end of the 4th game. You CAN play them separately, but you get the best game, and the fullest understanding when you play all 4. Furthermore, you knew going into the first game that it was a Part I (because it says so on the box).

For the purposes of this, let's say that the second game is assured.

Let's also say the first game is not necessary to receive the actual story of the second, only extra bonuses/a few advantages.

@Topa

The second game is not really a sequel (which would be two completely self-contained stories built in the same world). The stories CAN be separated, but you're left with loose ends on the first one that lead directly into the second one, like the .hack series.

Edit: Actually, if you've ever played Golden Sun 1 and 2, it's very much like that.

[Topagae]

"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."

[Mirage]

@Kinou

I don't really support episodic games other than it's an easier way for the makers to divide their budget and time since making 1 large game is always riskier. I don't know how making it seperately will benefit the player.

Like in the case of Hack, what if a player did not play all 4 games, do their appreciation is the same with the one who play all 4? Would Hack be a better game if all 4 was actually 1 game rather than 4 seperate games? But then I have never played Hack so I can't comment on that. lol

[kinougames]

Have you played Golden Sun? I loved the first one and was quite fulfilled, though I did kind of go D: OH NOES WHERE BE THE REST OF THE STORY, but the game play was definitely not lacking, and you reached a -sort- of impasse in the story so it wasn't like I was angry or anything about the separation.

The second game was just as good, and I'm glad I got to spend the 50-60 hours going through them both, and I didn't mind paying for it to be extra.

The only thing was that the beginning of the second spent some extra time that I didn't really care for re-explaining everything from the first.

As far as .hack, I only played 2 of them, and I can't say I was unsatisfied with it, but I probably would've preferred to get the whole story. If I like a game, I will not hesitate to buy a second, but not everyone is necessarily like that. (And no, it would not have been better, it would've been a 100 hour nightmare, IMO.)