Episodic content has become very popular in the gaming industry lately. Some of the more popular names that use it are of course Half Life 2 and Sam & Max. Episodic content sounds like a great idea when its on paper: Same old games in smaller chunks, cheaper to make, its like a tv show, and its supposed to be virtually the same game. But none of this happens. Episodic content is plainly put, annoying and is not effective in video games. It may cut down on costs for developers, but half the time it ends up taking way too long to make and gets delayed about a thousand times.

Think of this shining example of episodic content gone wrong: Half Life 2. Now I love Half Life and its one of the best games I'll ever play, but episodic content makes it feel so cut down. The original Half Life 2 was a full game and it felt very good. But Episode One? It feels like just a very short connector from Half Life 2 to Episode Two. Also, remember when Episode One was going to be called Half Life 2 Aftermath? I do. It just shows that episodic content does almost nothing to cut development time or costs. Episode One took so long to get to us that it should've just been a full sequel, not episodic content.

Another issue I want to address is confusing Expansion Packs with Episodic Content. I don't consider things like Shivering Isles to be episodic. Its a complete expansion and its not going to get any more stuff in it. It's done and its not going to have a Shivering Isles Part Two. I am actually intreged to see episodic content on real world games and see how it does. Microsoft has claimed that GTA IV will have some episodic content, and I think that if any game could use episodic content well, its GTA.

I alsodon't understand games being uncomplete just so the company can put out episodic or downloadable content to get more profit. That's just plain robbery. Maybe if the title would be a budget title I can understand, but if you have to pay 50-60 dollars for a game thats not finished, then thats ridiculous. All in all, Episodic Content was a good idea that just didn't work. The Sam & Max episodes would be much better in a full game and the same goes for HL2. I like to get a game that isn't going to make me wait for months and months to play it some more. That is not good gaming, and maybe developers will realize this.

As many of you gamespotters know, there are a TON of new games out here lately. A few of which are: COD4, Mass Effect, The Orange Box, Super Mario Galaxy, Rock Band, and Assassin's Creed. This is just a few of the games coming out this holiday season, and it feels overwhelming. This over-saturation of the market is making me think that this coming spring and summer are going to be full of nothingness. Especially the summer. Early 2008 is going to be good with titles like GTA IV, SSBB, and Metal Gear Solid 4. But summer? It's not looking very good.

I don't know if anyone else is feeling this way, but **** I just don't know what to do. There's so many games to choose from, and if I buy one, then i'm going to miss out on something else. It'd really be nice to have an even spread for the next few months instead of all these games that came out last month and this month. Now i'm going to play the devil's advocate and agree with the releasing of games during the holidays. It makes lots of sense for game developers and publishers to release their games in the prime buying season. But couldn't they just think of the consumer?

Another point: Wouldn't it be bad for a company to release a game at the same time as another? Wouldn't it take away from their profits? the answer is yes. Putting out two shooters like COD4 and UT3 isn't smart. Profits will be taken away from one and put to the other. The industry needs to get away from this trend. I can't remember a more crowded holiday season for games, and it's only going to get worse and worse from here. It's making gamers feel overwhelmed instead of feeling excited. It's just too **** much...

Gamespot's new review system is up as many people know, and i have to say that i don't like it. Mainly because its too absolute. It deals in absolutes and doesn't leave any room for subtleties. Now the Gamespot staff has defended this by saying that there is not enough difference in a 9.2 and a 9.3 score. Well there is a difference, and its that one is better than the other, but not by much. Now a game is either totally better than another game, or its the same, or its totally not better. Its ridiculous. Maybe i'm being a little nitpicky here, but i think that a review system with quarter values (1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2, etc etc) would be much much better. At least then you get a clear view on the broad message of the review, and the details of it.

It just blows my mind that you would go radically from one system to another that isn't as good. I think that a quarter value system would be perfect. It would give you a clear message of if the game is great or not, and still let you distinguish whether its getting the appropriate score. I think that many games are going to get a score thats not correct. For an example, Say a game would normally get a 9.7 score. Now it has to either get a 10 or a 9.5. That to me is just not right. The game is going to have to either be "perfect" or get a score that isn't giving it justice. Its not being truthful in my opinion... not that i'm saying that Gamespot is full of liars or something, but i really think that its going to constrict them a lot.

Also whats up with the score 8.5? i don't like that score at all. Its like inbetween being just pretty good, and being awesome.... i feel sorry for it