The Potential Future of AAA Episodic Games

Square Enix's upcoming remake of the PlayStation classic Final Fantasy VII

Final Fantasy VII was one of my favorite games as a child, and remains as such to this day, just as it does for a great deal of other gamers who played it from the day it came out until now (I personally was 10 years late, but enjoyed it no less because of that). The game is, and forever will be, revered as a huge lunge forward not just for the Final Fantasy franchise, but for the video game industry as a whole. A huge, engaging world and a revamp to some familiar RPG mechanics gave this 1997 PlayStation game the equipment it needed to become an instant classic to most everyone who played it, and it succeeded. 

Last year, during Sony's annual E3 press conference, something was announced that fans have been clamoring for since about 2005, a full Remake of Final Fantasy VII. The response was remarkable; nearly universal hype. The original reveal trailer was merely a cinematic, but that didn't slow things at all. People discussed the possibilities madly, as small bits of news came around and new questions arose. It was in December of the same year as the announcement that the first bit of gameplay was shown off at Sony's other annual event, PlayStation Experience. The response was more mixed than that of the initial announcement, but there was still positivity all around. 

Shortly after this trailer, but not during the event, it was announced that Remake would, in fact, be a staggered multi-part release. The fan backlash was immense. Almost all of the positivity brought up by the new trailer was destroyed, fans were horribly unhappy with this decision. I was among these people. I tried desperately to look for positives, but all that I could feel was dread regarding how this would ruin one of my favorite games of all time.

The flashy new combat system in Remake

While I can't deny that I hated the idea of an episodic approach to the remake of Final Fantasy VII for a couple months after its announcement, I'd like to believe that I am now at a point where I can see it as it is and develop hopes for the potential positives of it. I believe that these hopes for the development of an endeared IP apply not only to Remake, but also to other future AAA episodic games.

"Episodic game" is now a phrase that has a strong stigma that it's carrying, due largely to Square Enix alone, giving two of its most established franchises this treatment, being Final Fantasy VII and Hitman. It doesn't have to be this way. While I would definitely say that the stigma is deserved in the current state, I think that we are also close to a point where it can be changed. Most games that were made for episodic thus far have not been quite to the mainstream standard that Final Fantasy VII is, but considering that more AAA games and IP's may take the approach in the future, its important to see what can make these series' great in this form of development. For the sake of relevance, I will be using Remake as the main example for what can be done, but all of what is being said can and should be applied to any retail game being released in an episodic format. 

To start, the most important thing for developers to do is to ensure economic integrity. These AAA games that are being made in episodic format are almost certainly going to carry the typical retail price tags, meaning the discounted $20-30 prices of many multi-part games of today is not applying to them. That is okay, as long as they are supplying no less content than they would in a single package. As for each individual part, they need to cater to the fact that people want these parts to last a long time. I understand that the amount of original content that they can create per part is more limited than a full release, so it is the developer's duty to assure that the replayability is great. Some focus needs to be placed on making a sizable world that the players are eager to explore, full of fun side quests and challenges.

The greatest thing that the developer and publisher are responsible for is proper advertisement of the way the game is being sold. Like I discussed last week, not making the cheapest option to get the whole package clear to the consumer is an unethical practice. Publishers can have the split up approach available, that way certain customers can purchase parts as a way to test out a fair amount of the game before dropping money for the full game, but for other consumers, the multi-part approach needs to be clearly laid out. Consider the casual gamers who don't keep up on news of the industry, just playing and buying things as they release, or the parents who are generous enough to purchase for their children, this base of buyers needs to know what they are getting into with their initial purchase of Final Fantasy VII Remake or whatever other major games may release in episodic format.

Final Fantasy VII Remake being episodic is not an inherently bad thing, in my opinion, it could actually be a good thing. This approach could very well create a game more faithful to the fun value and scope of the original (integrity to a large size in a game is one of the few legitimate reasonings for making a game episodic that I accept), and future episodic games could benefit in development from this staggered release as well. The pool that is 'Episodic' is full of opportunity to improve a number of games and create a new approach to developing great and huge games. We as consumers must put our money behind the games that do things well, it wouldn't take much for greedy publishers to fill this metaphorical pool with toxic sludge and ruin it for a long time for everyone. We have the power to prevent this, so long as we let the publishers and developers know what we want.

What are your thoughts on Final Fantasy VII and its upcoming remake? How do you feel about the rise of the episodic approach in gaming? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

The State of Episodic Games

IO Interactive and Square Enix's Hitman

I was considering purchasing Hitman, which released on March 11th, just one week ago. I was considering it at two separate times in two very different ways. The first time I considered purchasing developer IO Interactive's newest entry in the Hitman franchise was during this previous E3. Throughout the gaming festivities, my eyes were drawn to Hitman a few times. Being a series I had no experience with, I figured that this reboot of sorts was a great place for me to begin, with the trailers having me intrigued by the core gameplay concepts. Hitman lies in a different place now than it did then though. It has joined the number of games getting in on a new trend in publishing; an episodic release. 

I actually do not have a problem with episodic gaming, I think that it has its benefits; providing smaller experiences with a greater sense of longevity and increasing public interest in a potentially otherwise unseen game due to its smaller price tag and time commitment. While I personally would prefer to wait until all episodes of a game are released to experience it, I don't see much harm in games being built from the ground up with an episodic structure in mind, with successes like Telltale's projects and Life is Strange (interestingly also a Square Enix published game) quite demonstrative of the potential. Not all games are built for episodic though, and not all games should be released in the format even if they are built in similar fashion to them.

Hitman was always planned for some form of staggered release, but not originally as a 7-episode split (at least it was not advertised as such). A game being released in 2 parts at different times is hard to call episodic, and a game which is purchased that later adds free content absolutely should not be. Hitman was certainly split up for an economic gain, and I know because of the second time I considered purchasing the game. 

When the 7-episode format was announced in January, my initial interest completely faded, I leaned more towards the idea of waiting until all parts were released in a singular package later this same year. The date of release for the first episode approached, and my mind began to change, largely due to the full package release being delayed into early 2017. Whether this delay was an intentional move on Square Enix's part is impossible to say, but I would not be shocked considering how it effected me and likely others of the same mindset. I strongly considered downloading the first episode to the game, with my biggest impulse being driven by the seemingly tiny $15 price tag. It seemed completely reasonable, but upon some objective thinking, I realized what I'd truly be doing. When the full package releases in 2017, it will cost the average retail price of most other AAA games; $60. If I purchased episode 1, and then decided that I had interest in the entire series of episodes, I would pay a bare minimum of $65. This may seem like a small increase, but there are other factors to consider; that is simply the minimum. I could (as some less aware consumers very well may do) purchase each episode as it releases, and be paying a significant amount greater than $60. 

The approach of splitting a larger cost into a number of smaller payments to increase the appeal to the average consumer is not new in the world of business and sales, but when it is done in a quiet and shady manner like I believe Square Enix did, I dislike it greatly, I don't see it as having any place in the video game industry. The games industry currently has enough economically corrupt tactics -- I'm looking at you, microtransactions -- and so long as other things continue to be rampant, we shouldn't have to worry, as consumers or gamers, about the list getting longer.

Square Enix's upcoming episodic remake of the PlayStation classic, Final Fantasy VII

I believe episodic could have a place in the future of gaming, not only as something bearable, but as something great. There is simply too much for me to say regarding my thoughts and hopes for the future to fit into this editorial about its current state. I hope that you may give me your time again for my next editorial where I will look into this prospect, spring-boarding off the discussion hub that is Final Fantasy VII Remake.

What are your thoughts regarding episodic gaming right now? Do you enjoy this format of gaming? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Same-Sex Marriage in Fire Emblem Fates

Nintendo's recently released Fire Emblem Fates

Fire Emblem Fates released its two retail versions, Birthright and Conquest, 3 weeks ago on February 19th. I have been playing Birthright quite actively, and am planning to move on to Conquest shortly, after I finish my current play through. There is also a third download exclusive version that released just yesterday, Revelation. I am in love with the game. Mechanically speaking, the gameplay is hugely polished and improves the turn based style that the series is known for through a number of improvements to the formula. The maps are as unique as ever and add a great amount of depth to each chapter. The story is engrossing and powerful and each of the 3 versions introduces different twists and characters.

Another thing that I can't help but appreciate is the relationship system and the inclusion of same-sex marriage. During battles, having units paired up and working together builds bonds via a support system, these bonds increase the rating of their relationship (represented with C, B, A, and S/A+). When two characters reach S ranking, they can be married. In the series' past, only characters of the opposite sex could be married. Now, in Fates, while it is somewhat limited, marriage is allowed between two characters of the same sex.

Your avatar character, who we'll call Corrin for the sake of clarity, is not your typical avatar character. You can pick their gender, their design, and their name, but the character is still developed beyond player control, having a similar amount of dialogue to most of the main characters. Sexual orientation is something that is not pointed out at all in the plot of the game (neither for Corrin nor any other character), so it makes sense that that is among the things that the player has a choice in. 

You aren't manipulating certain characters to be homosexual, characters that are straight are straight, nothing can be done about that, and that is fine. I discussed in the past that representation of alternate sexualities should be proportionally accurate to that of the real world, so it matches the truth of life that not everybody the player wants to be gay, for the option of marriage or otherwise, will be.

There are two characters in Fire Emblem Fates that are bisexual, and thus available for marriage to either gender. There is one male in Conquest and one female in Birthright. While this is a rather small representation, and I still would like to have seen an exclusively gay character or two, it is where this representation is happening that makes me hopeful. There are many games that have at least a partial purpose of being progressive and giving alternative groups representation that they can appreciate. Nintendo is not generally known to do this, and neither is Fire Emblem. 

While this specific franchise does not have the strongest aim at children like some of Nintendo's other franchises do, the audience still exists without a doubt, evidenced by the new difficulty modes aimed at those who aren't capable of fully comprehending the strategy gameplay. Children are one of the best audiences to portray gay marriage to, especially in the way that Fates does it. Sexuality is never discussed, the support system simply is a place where the bond characters have built is displayed through endearing conversations. If you were to marry someone of the same sex to Corrin, it is treated no different than any other marriage. Most importantly, the marriages in the game are not sexual, they are simply a sharing of love. To show same-sex marriage as a bond that is created through love is tremendous, it shows normalcy in these relationships instead of trying to show it as some sexual deviation.

Fire Emblem Fates' contribution to the non-straight community's representation in gaming is small, but it's the fact that it wasn't trying that makes it great. Fates is just another game release, so the fact that it integrates homosexuality so well without it having been a major goal of the developers is what makes this occurrence stand out to me. I just hope more games come out in the future that follow in these footsteps.

Have you been enjoying Fates for the past couple of weeks? Are you happy with the inclusion of gay marriage and how it was handled? Let me know in the comments or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.

Why I Want So Many Female Game Characters

Characters Bayonetta and Jeanne as they appear in Platinum's Bayonetta 2.

I clearly love Bayonetta as a character.  I have spoken about her a few times on this blog regarding a number of subjects. I find her to be a wonderful representation of progression in the Video Game industry, being a powerful and developed female character in a market that mostly lacks anything of the sort. Surely, her place is up for debate, but the place for female characters in general is not. There are simply not enough. Games are a fantasy in more ways than one, but one thing that is not in need of such a treatment is proper representation of people. Society is made up of far more types of people than white, straight, buff men, and video games should show this.

As I said, pegging video games as a fantasy does not justify rash under-representation of different sorts of people. It should be a fantasy world where you take a believable character and put them in a situation different from our own reality (in most cases) and experience everything with them. Not everyone in the world and not everyone playing is a white straight male, so why is there a significant leaning towards this group in most games today?

Asian, Female character Faith as she appears in the upcoming entry in DICE's Mirror's Edge series.

I am frequently one to clamor on that we need more female characters and female leads in big games, and to many, it is seen as me wanting the balance to tilt in women's favor. I understand where this can come from, as I spend huge amounts of time discussing female characters and what can make them great, and never really discuss how we can improve the male characters. This is simply because proportionally speaking, there are far more well-developed male characters than female. 

And gender is far from the only poorly represented group, different races and sexuality are  highly under-represented as well. The character above, Faith from Mirror's Edge and its upcoming successor Catalyst, is a strong female and Asian character with a fair amount of development. Neither her being Asian nor her being female are defining characteristics, just what they should be; factors beyond our control that shouldn't have to define us. In some cases, a characters traits that are beyond their control can define them and they excel because of it. Kanji Tatsumi from Persona 4 is quite a strong example of this. A great amount of his character development arc is spent focusing on his sexuality and his feeling of a need to fit into a typical gender role that society has set out for him. As someone who struggled myself with coming to accept my bisexuality, I can say that they did a brilliant job representing the mental struggle. 

Tremendous Character Ellie as she appears in Naughty Dog's The Last of Us.

The Last of Us was one of the finest games of last generation (and this generation as well thanks to remasters). The writing was brilliant to a degree that was literally hard to believe for a video game. The characters' developments and the interactions between each other were amazing and some scenes were among the finest in all of entertainment, beyond even just games. Ellie, in my and many other people's opinions, is the finest character in the game. Light Spoilers for The Last of Us: Left Behind follow.

Ellie is a 15-year-old young woman. She has a number of hyper realistic character traits that make her fascinating to spend your time with. She is also not straight. Neither of these things are defining factors in her life or for her character. There is one scene in Left Behind that reveals her sexuality, and her gender is never pointed out with the intent of character definition. She is a great character, and that's really the only necessary detail you need as far as those factors beyond her control.

When you take a character that is of an "alternative" group of people and present them in a completely normal manner, not making the factors that make them part of these groups their defining traits, you can make a character with tremendous ease to relate to. These characters are easily liked and enjoyed by people both in and not in "alternative" groups. No one really argues the place of these developed characters when they appear, yet their appearances seem so few and far between. Its really not much more difficult to write a good character of these groups than it is to write one who is a white male. This method is the best and simplest way to begin introducing different types of people through video games to mass audiences. If we spend a couple of years introducing this, we will get to a point where many different groups are represented, and in the industry as a whole, their representation will be proportionally accurate. So, no, I do not want more female characters than males, I just see that we need more good female characters than what we have right now; female characters, non-straight characters, non-white characters, and surely others not mentioned; all these groups should be represented, come together until we reach a point where the people in our games accurately represent the diversity of the people of the world where our games are played.

What sort of diversity do you want to see represented in video games? Do you think this is something we can get done quickly? Let me know in the comment section or wherever you see fit.

Have a tremendous day.