You run into the risk of "retconning" previous games as well, even if you go for sequels instead of episodic gaming. Just because you know a story inside and out, doesn't mean you've taken the time to make sure it makes sense in context with everything that has come before.
As a writer (a never published and never finished writing a story kind of writer), it often irks me to no end that books or game companies can create a story that retcons portions of the already established story and universe. Whenever I have set about planning a story to write or to create for a game, I've always sat down and tried to establish the absolute facts of the story. I frequently go back to this list and reread what I'd written to ensure that it makes complete sense in context of the world I've created. There are only two reasons someone wouldn't do this: 1. They are absolutely lazy and hope the audience doesn't catch the contradictions and retconning. 2. The material has been handed off to another individual or team who are inexperienced with the content and aren't interested in the content as a whole. Both of those reasons are absolutely inexcusable.
But, the point remains that whether you go Episodic or not, it doesn't really matter that much. There are all these other variables that need to align for a "rank amateur" to produce a game (even a bad game!). I can admit that despite knowing a lot about the video game business (at least in terms of design, player behavior, and story structure), I am a rank amateur when it comes to actually creating a game. I have no talent, no experience, and no credentials for making a game. Many people, including myself, realize at some point that what we're making as a game is really more for ourselves than for an audience. We end up doing it because it's something fun and interesting to do. The program lends itself well to being a "toy", despite not being designed as such. We use the program in the same way the guy down the hall plays his guitar. It's interesting and fun to do... and you can sometimes pick up chicks with it.
Now, if you get into the actual people who really do care about producing a game and it is one of their life long dreams... Those are the people who will complete their games. It isn't just some passing fancy or toy they're tinkering with. It is their creative outlet (much like painters have a canvas, writers have notebooks, and musicians have violins) and their freedom of expression. Those are the people who go on to do more with the program than many of us ever do. They are the ones who get the jobs and do the work, because it's a labor of love and no amount of real life BS will stop them from doing it. Those people create the 50 hour RPGs as their first attempt. Those are the people who attempt to make narrative gold with their experience.
Amateurs always can and always will fail at a task that they never had any intention of ever making the main focus of their lives. Episodic Gaming or not, they will fail. That doesn't mean they have nothing to offer or that "they are doing it wrong". No, it just means they aren't cut out for the business of creating, publishing, and selling games.
RPG Maker just does one thing remarkably well that most people don't notice. It separates the chaff from the wheat. It's a neat program that lets people who would never create a video game experience what that process is probably like (as well as how many hours would often go into it) and it lets other people who would create a good video game have a lot of resources at their fingertips as kind of an "introductory" program. Everyone goes into the program wanting to be the wheat, but it doesn't take long for the chaff to accept they are chaff, but to enjoy the experience anyway. It's almost like a test that nobody really minds "failing", because the program is designed in such a way to be fun, even to those who don't have the potential for a career in Video Game Design. It's a toy to those without the potential, and it's a tool for those with it.
