Episodic RPGs (Informative, not a question/tutorial)

[Sixxon]

So, it's not an unusual occurrence for user projects to crash, burn, and die. Hell, AAA projects do the same thing on a daily basis. But you don't have a budget of seventy kasgiuohdskqgillion dollars. You likely have a small team full of amateur game developers working on a game that will generate no revenue that have lives outside of working on the game. Jobs, too.

And this becomes a problem.

So many strive to create bloody gigantic, 60-hour epics that they will never finish. I have never seen someone on this forum, for their first project, create a full-length, quality RPG experience and finish it completely. Never. And it likely never will happen. But this isn't to deter you from making those kinds of games. This is to convince you to walk before you run. There is a specific type of game that's shorter, easier to make, and can sometimes result in some more interesting, better experiences than the standard single-game compactness. Episodic games. Walking Dead, Siren Blood Curse, Half-Life 2, games like these have done the episodic formula and succeeded for the most part. (deathstares at Valve) But the problem that most see with this kind of game is that RPGs are games that have gradual buildup, and they usually take a very, very long time to get into. However, there are simple solutions to this issue - 

> Re-design your progression. Make everything not a straight line, and create non-linear paths.

> Just make a carry-over save script. I'm not a expert in Ruby, but most teams have a scripter on hand anyway.

> Manage the way you split your episode. When most people hear "episode" they think 1-2 hours of gameplay. Shorten progression to accommodate, and make your story work with it.

But after that, you have the commitment to make more. There are more reasons that this is a good thing.

> You get to essentially do "Test-Runs" with your current team. People will dissapear, there will be arguments, but this is okay, because once you've released your first, quality episode, you can get your final long-term team together, and if you weren't dumb with your "sign-up requirements", you can still distribute that particular episode(s) freely without fear of a former team member's jimmies getting rustled. It gives you time to weed out the bad apples.

> Experience. You get to know what you're doing way better, and because of this, most of the time your episodes will escalate in quality because you know what you're doing. 

> It's hard to get burned out on a episodic series. You get time between each release to want to play that kind of gameplay again, and then another episode comes out and people'll jump on it. 

It's REASONABLE. I'm not saying every RPG on this forum should be released in this form, infact, some shouldn't. It all depends on the game you're going for. But you're more likely to finish a bunch of small projects in succession than one gargantuan one. 

And after you've released a game like this, you have a fanbase, you have a following. THEN feel free to make your 60-hour epic, now that you have the experience, time, and in some cases - money, to do so.

- Sixxon

 

[Shaz]

Episodic games have a whole new suite of issues all of their own. It might be easier to break a big project up into smaller projects for the purpose of design and creation, but to actually release them as individual games (if you want to drag over save files so you can continue) bring new questions, design requirements and development requirements into the mix that wouldn't otherwise be there.


Not saying "don't do it", but saying "don't do it with the thought that it'll make things easier". It might make SOME things easier, but it'll make others a whole lot harder

 

[Sixxon]

Not easier, no.

Just more reasonable.

I can see your point perfectly, but people forget that they're essentially working with people they don't know, in a digital studio, and that game isn't their top priority. That's not a recipe for finishing a full-length title, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

One thing I really don't like is games that have been cut-out into several parts, when they could have been made into just 1 whole game. Especially if you need to finish game 1 in order to play, understand game 2 and so on... Most especially if it's a commercial game.


4 games around 5 hours each? Why not make it into a 1 20-hour game instead? With this, I would need to download 4 games, probably have to use space on my HDD that is around twice (or maybe 4 times) or more of the size of the game if it have been just made into 1 etc. As a player, it just turns me away from the game.


If you're gonna split it up, at least make it reasonable for the player. If you don't have the motivation to finish the whole game such that you'd result into dividing them apart (and no, don't tell me you're doing it because it's more reasonable; it is just indeed a way to make things easier for you, since it's easier for you, you think it's more reasonable), don't make one at all.


Finishing a game is one thing, but ultimately what you want to do is not simply to make a finished game, but rather to make a finished game that people will play.


If this is more about those who is just starting out, I'd rather tell them to make several different short games rather than make several episodic games... Why? Because that will work better for both the dev and the players.

 

[Tai_MT]

Challenge Accepted mister original poster man!

Well, it all seriousness, I realize that my project is inherently enormous.  It's my first project with VX Ace (though, not my first project with RPG Maker, as I started out much younger and with a pirated version of RPG Maker 2000) and I know that it's "more than I can chew".  But!  Huge "But" there.  The story I want to tell can't be told in a small 3-5 hour project.  It really just can't.

So, from the get-go, I had planned to release it in "stages".  As in, taking what is originally intended as a fairly long game and breaking it up into very manageable pieces.  The first step for me is simply "get a demo put together".  Doing this gives me the knowledge of just what needs to be done and how much work it would actually entail.  Everything after that demo experience (which is something like 3 of the 9 cast members and a quarter of the first area of the game with nearly 30 Quests and 3 Tiers of equipment) is then done in an "episodic" manner.  It's easier to avoid "burn out" in this way and it's also much easier to troubleshoot the game and make changes as I go along.  The demo is "proof of concept" and then I start work on "Act One", which is essentially just the first area of the game.  There are three Acts after that, and each one would be completed either as a whole or in segments (depending on what my time is like for creating the game).

The major issue I can see with releasing the content like this is that it will be hard to maintain any kind of "interest" in the project.  It gets especially bad when you consider that each Act may take up to a year (or longer!) to be put out by a single man using only his very limited spare time.  There are also the issues of "incompatible save files" if I've changed things or fixed errors between Acts and Builds.  I can't honestly see someone willing to start their entire file over just because I fixed or changed something that needed changed.

I can see lots of problems for myself in the future by doing it this way.  However, it's easier on me as my time is limited and my attention-span is as well.  At some point, I hope to release the whole thing as a single game at some point, but until then it'll likely be "unfinished episodic mess" that people will either patiently wait for or say "not worth the time investment for what the story is" and move on.  But, it is what it is.  Programming games isn't what I'm good at.  Writing stories is.  My hope is that despite the nature of the release of the game, someone will still be interested in how things turn out on the story side of things.  If I can make you come back for the story, that's all I really want.

Though, it would be quite awesome if I could make episodic gameplay really fun as well.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

what you can do is that just make each one end in a way that either: will surely make people wanna see the next, or end it in such a way that it looks like it's finished... or you can merge them together... if you can do that, then it becomes worth it. but nonetheless better make them quite "independent" on each other...


or release 1, then when you release 2, don't remove 1 from it, make new game start out from the start of game 1 too, just make it such that if you already have save from 1, then you start at the same place where you last saved... this way newcomers won't need to download the previous ones, and those who already played them can remove the older ones after they get the new one... also, now its essential still just 1 whole game. It will be like you're just releasing "expansions" every year or so...


the thing you need to take care of is to ensure that each "Act"'s ending is good enough for them to want to play the next expansions without looking too "unfinished"

 

[Tai_MT]

The way it is currently planned out...  When Act 2 is finished, it is simply added on top of Act 1, so that it's a "new download", but it's all one game.  Players could then simply load their previous save file into it and keep playing (unless I'd made massive changes like altering variables or other such nonsense).  At that point, it'd be a "you need to start over" kind of thing.  I can see it getting old quite fast if I did it too much.  It's one of the reasons I've been spending a LOT of time cleaning up my Database and my Switches/Variables.  If I get it in order now, less chance it'll change later and get all screwy.

I haven't really decided how each Act will end at this point.  With the whole "True Choice" system I'm designing, that might be a bit tricky.  I did however want to have players leave each Act with questions about what is going to happen next and what that last bit of information they were given actually means.  I don't want to tease too hard, because if something happens (like I get bored making it, or die, or what-have-you) and the game can't actually be finished, it won't be as big of a deal.  It wouldn't be "Well, now we'll never find out how this ends!".  It would be more like, "I kind of know where it's going, but all the twists and turns are what is keeping me playing".  Which, is going to be somewhat difficult.

Actually, at this point, I'm just hoping people are interested enough in playing the game after trying out the demo.  I'll worry about the "long haul" after that.

 

[Indinera]

Episodic games WITH an "export save file" system are a real pain IMO. If you don't bother with that, yeah, it's probably easier. At the end of the day, I find your own motivation the most important criteria. If you are willing to finish a game, and you do not set out for features that are clearly out of your skills, you will always finish.

 

[Kes]

 I have never seen someone on this forum, for their first project, create a full-length, quality RPG experience and finish it completely. Never. And it likely never will happen.

see my signature.

 

[Sixxon]

Regardless of your opinion, I appreciate I was able to spark some discussion on the subject.

 

[Sixxon]

One thing I really don't like is games that have been cut-out into several parts, when they could have been made into just 1 whole game. Especially if you need to finish game 1 in order to play, understand game 2 and so on... Most especially if it's a commercial game.

4 games around 5 hours each? Why not make it into a 1 20-hour game instead? With this, I would need to download 4 games, probably have to use space on my HDD that is around twice (or maybe 4 times) or more of the size of the game if it have been just made into 1 etc. As a player, it just turns me away from the game.

If you're gonna split it up, at least make it reasonable for the player. If you don't have the motivation to finish the whole game such that you'd result into dividing them apart (and no, don't tell me you're doing it because it's more reasonable; it is just indeed a way to make things easier for you, since it's easier for you, you think it's more reasonable), don't make one at all.

Finishing a game is one thing, but ultimately what you want to do is not simply to make a finished game, but rather to make a finished game that people will play.

If this is more about those who is just starting out, I'd rather tell them to make several different short games rather than make several episodic games... Why? Because that will work better for both the dev and the players.

Your first game likely won't be a commercial game, will it? 

It's not about /motivation/, it's about keeping a stable team, having enough resources, time, and money, and SUSTAINING that through development. That's a hard thing to do in a digital space where everyone has a million other things to do other than work on the game. 

It really is about for people who are just starting out. I would agree that you could make different short games too, but this threadwas talking more from the standpoint of people who WANT to do that ridiculously large game. This is a way that you still CAN, and it can have other benefits as well. And, again, if you just pull off your carry-over system well, the space you mentioned would be a non-issue. In addition, you would only be downloading those games in particular once a week/month/few months, depending on how the creators structure it.

 

[Indinera]

Your first game likely won't be a commercial game, will it?

I know someone who made a commercial game from the start, so what?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Your first game likely won't be a commercial game, will it?

Eh? Look again at ksjp's reply won't you?


If you're someone who doesn't have motivation/stability_of_team to finish an epicly large game, it doesn't really make a difference whether you release "sub-episodes" or not. Actually it's just like releasing occassional "demo" versions of the game during development. The only difference is that in case you fail to finish the whole game (which you probably would), you can now claim that you actually finished some games since you have released "episodes", which is just the same as releasing a non-finished game.

 

[Sixxon]

It would give you time to switch out the members of the team in question, wouldn't it?

 

[Kes]

It would give you time to switch out the members of the team in question, wouldn't it?

it is unclear to me how that is a reply to the points which Engr. Adiktuzmiko made.

I think there are a couple of basic problems with this discussion.

You could have made a proposition based on what generally happens - once you had a clear enough grasp on that.  Instead you based it on some absolutes.  There are many problems with using absolutist statements as foundational in an argument, not least that usually an absolute is quickly proven to be factually wrong - as my first post (post #9) did.  It is worth pointing out that I am far from being the only person ever to finish their first game and make a decent job of it.  I'd accept that first games often aren't finished, but to make the sweeping assertion that you did was guaranteed to leave your argument vulnerable.  Having demolished your foundation, the rest of the argument looks decidedly shaky. 

You then make another sweeping assertion, which 2 people pointed out was factually wrong.  At this point you could have amended your original position in a thoughtful way which brought out what you think is essential to it.  Instead you have swung from the statement about the importance of keeping a stable team to having what appears to be a hire and fire approach.

If you want to make a case for an episodic approach to game making, then go ahead and construct one - but do so on the basis of facts on the ground, not inaccurate assertions.

 

[Tai_MT]

After reading all the replies (since my last visit to this topic), it honestly just looks like he's trolling.  He's looking to make people agree with him instead of actually have a discussion about the subject at large.  It isn't about "right and wrong" at this point, it's about ego.

Now, if we're going to jump into this topic, we need to set up some parameters that aren't absolute, but are fairly common.

1.  The RPG Maker Community is fairly large with a large amount of people who want to make their own games or supplement current projects with artwork, music, etcetera.

2.  Many in the Community are under eighteen, though some are what I call "young adults" who range in the 19-25 age category.

3.  People in this Community often aren't sure how the "create a game" process works.  They begin with an idea and move on from there depending on their ambition and skill.

4.  When you work with a team, that team needs to be as dedicated as you are, or your game will take a long time to complete.  If that team isn't dedicated, it often means the game will end in failure without ever seeing completion.

5.  Teams are often built from across the globe and so you need to rely on people that have vastly different schedules from you.

6.  Firing a team to make a new one often presents more problems than simply keeping the old team as the new team may not have the same goals or standards of quality.  Often, this can even lead to artistic shifts.

7.  Longer games don't tend to be released as a "first game" simply because the creator loses interest in the concept, or has lost the "drive" to make any game a reality.  It is harder to maintain interest in something that may end up being developed on a 3 year cycle for a developer without experience working with people they don't know and don't personally interact with in the real world.

8.  Episodic gaming exists for a myriad of reasons and all of them are valid.  However, some people incorrectly use Episodic Games in order to stall for time on their main game or to release "unfinished" games that can be "patched" later.  Some actual publishers also use Episodic gaming to charge more for their product than they otherwise would have gotten (as in The Walking Dead, which had a price of $50 by the time you bought all the episodes...  And the game, if released all at once, would have been $30 at the max).  It's a great way to inflate cost of your game by tricking the consumer into buying "pieces" of content that seem worth the price, instead of the whole thing all at once that wouldn't be worth the price.

With all of that out of the way...  Let's discuss why you might not want to make a huge project your first one.

Basically, the only reason you wouldn't want to do it is because, as other people have said on these forums, making a huge game when you don't know how the program works is a really bad way to start.  Doing it that way will lead to frequent revisions, cut content, randomly added new content, inefficient eventing, etcetera.  It is beneficial for newcomers to the program to first crank out a 3 hour game that does a bit of everything so that they know how the program works and just what they can do with it.  That experience will be invaluable later.  Keep in mind, not everyone needs to do this, but it can be beneficial.

Let's also address your "fanbase" assertion at the end of your initial post.  No matter how good of a game you create, there is no guarantee you'll get a fanbase.  Especially after your first game.  Saying that by creating many small games, you will garner a fanbase is just plain false.  Perhaps your small games just aren't that good?  Maybe you just don't have the proper talent to be a game designer (Lord knows, I don't have the talent for that)?  All creating the small games will do is give you experience.  Experience you need, to be sure, but only experience.  You get fans for creating excellent games.  Games on par with Bioshock Infinite or Last Of Us (which I don't agree is good... but everyone else says it is, so we'll go with their opinion since I'm in the minority here).  You get fans by creating those kinds of experiences, not by churning out a bunch of small and short games that may or may not be any good or entertaining.

My advice would be this:  If you want to go the Episodic route, you need to make those short games pack as much punch as possible.  They need to be deep, engaging, and interesting.  If they're not, then no amount of "create short games" will help you out or earn you praise.  So, even if you aim for the short games, you still need to aim for the stars.  Otherwise... you're only making games for yourself and for the group of friends you have who would play merely out of curiosity or obligation and whom would never tell you that it isn't good.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

It would give you time to switch out the members of the team in question, wouldn't it?

And making the game as a whole doesn't give you time to switch members if needed? Just what kind of logic is that?


If your main goal as to why you want to make it episodic is to increase chances of finishing the "whole" game, then just don't because it won't really help. If you cannot finish the "whole" game in 1 whole way, trying to finish it by releasing parts won't help you. You would still stop at some point.


And oh, I'm talking about years of experience here. Not RM wise but still related to game development with a team.

When you work with a team, that team needs to be as dedicated as you are, or your game will take a long time to complete. If that team isn't dedicated, it often means the game will end in failure without ever seeing completion.

yes, and you yourself needs to have dedication. If the leader has no dedication, you cannot expect the team to have it.

Let's also address your "fanbase" assertion at the end of your initial post. No matter how good of a game you create, there is no guarantee you'll get a fanbase. Especially after your first game. Saying that by creating many small games, you will garner a fanbase is just plain false.

This is so true

 

[Aceri]

And making the game as a whole doesn't give you time to switch members if needed? Just what kind of logic is that?

If your main goal as to why you want to make it episodic is to increase chances of finishing the "whole" game, then just don't because it won't really help. If you cannot finish the "whole" game in 1 whole way, trying to finish it by releasing parts won't help you. You would still stop at some point.

Truth.

People will know within the first 10-15 minutes if your game sucks and isn't worth playing, doing it episodically won't change that or help you. A full game is better in that regard because if your gameplay sucks, but your story is good people will, who care about story, stick around through the entirety of the game. If you make a crap game with an okay story episodically, you're actually GIVING the player a reason to not have to continue playing your game/s.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

which backs up Tai's falsification of Sixxon's idea that releasing the game episodically will help make a fanbase for when the game is finished.


It even happens in AAA companies sometimes based on my minor observations.

 

[Aceri]

The only thing that can make a fan base before a game is released is good promotion and publicity. Claiming it's episodic won't do a thing.