An episode of a good television show should contain three things. First of all, it should tell an interesting story on its own to someone who hasn't seen the show before. Second, it should develop the characters of the story in a way that will be carried on in later episodes. Third, it should reinforce the theme that the television show is exploring. Most good video games already follow this structure, but we still have very few true episodic games. In this article, I'm going to suggest how some already published games could have been episodic games, then I'll explain how a developer can build an episodic game from the ground up.

Role playing games (RPG) are already episodic in nature, but developers insist on releasing them as one giant package. When you think about any western RPG you've ever played, you realize that there was usually a choice of which area to visit first. For example, in Mass Effect you were assigned to visit three different planets, but you could choose the order. Each one of those planets was a different episode. Each planet followed the first rule, since they all had introductions, rising action, and climaxes like any interesting story should. The second rule was more or less followed, but one could argue that someone who had played the other parts of the game would get more out of it, but that's true of all episodic content. On all of the planets the third rule was followed as each planet asked you to examine whether the ends justified the means.

Other RPGs have similar episodic structure. While Final Fantasy games may not give you any choice about where you should go, they still have definite episodes that can be isolated from the whole and stand on their own. In the case of a Final Fantasy game, due to the linearity you would need to fill in players on "what has gone on before" using a pre-roll video. This sort of technique has been used for ages in the world of television in order to allow non-regular viewers to understand complex stories that TV shows try to tell.

The next game that I want to divide into episodes is Bioshock. Bioshock is a great example because it has clearly defined levels, which are independent of each other. The problem with Bioshock is that it violates my second rule of television shows, like a Final Fantasy game would. Linearity is often thought of as a negative thing in video games; and in the case of episodic gaming it's true.

The first level of Bioshock was more or less contained in the demo. It more or less explained what was going on in Rapture and it served to introduce the major characters. The first episode would be given away free in order to make players interested in the game.

The second episode would be the medical pavilion. The first rule of episodic content said that an episode should tell an interesting story on its own. Dr. Steinman's obsession with perfection at any cost is an interesting story and has a climactic ending. This level also completes the third rule because it reinforces one of Bioshock's theme. The encounter with Steinman is the first instance where you see how a society with moral safeguards will do anything for success and perfection.

I won't go through all of the levels in Bioshock because it was a fairly long game. The game divides neatly into episodes because the developers were smart about it. 2K Boston thought through the highs and lows of each section because they understood that each section was its own story, each contributing the larger story of Bioshock.

In order to create an episodic game you need to do little more than look at what Valve did wrong. Valve has released two of the three Half-Life 2 episodes to much critical acclaim, but it took them three years to get the first two out, and it will probably end up taking them three years to put out the third game. How did a talented studio like Valve get into the problem that they're in, inconsistently delivering episodic content? They didn't think it through.

Well executed television shows aren't shot during the season. They write the script for the entire season, then shoot the entire season, then edit the entire thing, then release it over a period of a few months. This approach of creating a whole season of content, then releasing it slowly provides the consistency that makes episodic content something we look forward to. Valve made the mistake of promising the content before it was created. It works well for movies, but the stories in video games are closer to those of television than film.

Valve also made the mistake of not planning the whole thing out. When you want to create a movie, you usually need to have some idea of how the movie will end before you begin. There are exceptions to this rule like Apocalypse Now, but apparently Half-Life 2: Episode 3 is not an exception. The writers have clearly hit a writing block because they don't know how to wrap up what they've started. If you don't plan how something is going to end before it begins, then you're not going to be able to end it.

In order to make episodic content all of developer needs to do is just think of levels as episodes. If a developer evaluates every level in its game in terms of the three rules, then they would have no problem releasing content in an episodic manner. As it is now, developers are simply trying to create shorter games with cliffhanger endings and calling it episodic gaming. In order to understand how to do episodic gaming correctly, developers should just look to television and see the formula that has been perfected in sixty years of broadcasting.

Many years ago, I used to be a paperboy. Delivering newspapers wasn't a bad job except for the dogs. One family that I delivered to kept a particularly loud dog that they allowed to roam around their yard with an invisible fence. I knew that this dog wouldn't bite me because if it were a biting dog, then they probably wouldn't let it outside. At the same time, having a large growling dog barking and showing its teeth to you can be a little disconcerting. The reason that the dog got to be like that is because the owners rewarded negative behavior. They fed the dog a treat in order to get the dog to stop barking, but the dog assumed that the treat was being given to it because it barked. Perhaps you've seen the same thing happen in the grocery store when an overwhelmed mother gives in to her child when he has a tantrum.

It's often hard to recognize that you're rewarding bad behavior because it usually doesn't have consequences for a considerable amount of time. The problem is that you eventually end up with a situation that's out of your control. The mother who rewards her children for throwing tantrums ends up with rebellious children that she can't control. The pet owners who rewarded their dog for barking at their paperboy ended up with an obnoxious dog that they couldn't control. Similarly, video game publishers have rewarded gamers for waiting to purchase games, leading to a devaluation of the video game.

With a few exceptions (I'm looking at you Modern Warfare), most video games will have their prices cut in half within a year. If a gamer waits a year to buy a game, then they'll save a bundle of money. The problem is especially prevalent with single player games. There is very little motivation to buy a single player game when it first comes out. I want to play Mass Effect 2 as much as the next person, but I won't be buying it on launch day. I'll pick up the game during the summer when it's half price somewhere.

Publishers slash prices in order to promote sell more copies of a title that has seen sales slide. This practice makes a lot of sense and if isolated to a single occurrence would make any economist happy as it recognizes the principles of supply and demand. As the demand for the game increases and supply (infinite in the case of a video game that the publisher is still manufacturing) remains the same. In order to increase demand, the publisher decreases the price. The problem is that when the price is slashed, it hurts the publisher more than it helps them.

Slashing the price leads to the perception that similar games are only worth that much. With Rock Band and Rock Band 2 selling for $20 each, it's a tough sell to convince someone that the Beatles edition is worth three times as much. Consequently people who haven't purchased the original games already buy the older titles. People who already own the original two Rock Band games will opt to wait, seeing how time has eroded the price of the games they already own significantly. When similar games are on the shelf for vastly different prices, it's difficult for a more expensive game to compete.

Slashing prices also leads to a decrease in margins on video games. If a game sells for $60 at retail, then the publisher probably sees $50 of that revenue. If the game sells for $20, then the publisher will receive a less favorable margin because transportation, manufacturing, and other fixed costs remain. If one assumes that consumers spend a fixed amount on video games each year, then it would be best to sell a few games at $60, rather than several at $20.

The problem that publishers have is that they're all competing with each other. Publishers know that if they don't cut the price on older titles, then someone else will and that publisher will take sales away from the one that holds out. Competition is great for consumers, but it's killing publishers. If you don't believe me that publishers are having a hard time, then take a look at the income statements for some of the major publishers. EA has been losing money for more than two years. Activision lost money in 2008. Take-Two lost money in two of the last three fiscal years.

My point isn't to make us all feel sorry for the major publishers. Their misfortunes are their own faults. They've repeatedly rewarded gamers for waiting to buy games. They've allowed people like myself to consider the value of a video game to be $20 or less. Publishers ought to hold their ground when assigning the value for a game. If a game launches at $60, then it should leave store shelves at $60. If publishers continue to reward bad behavior in their customers then they'll find the situation is soon out of control as more gamers decide it's best to wait until prices fall before buying.

DLC has been a controversial topic in the last few years as gamers try to decide whether DLC is a good thing or a bad thing. Gamers are tantalized by the possibility of extending their favorite game experiences, but they're also frustrated at DLC like Bethesda's infamous "Horse Armor." I argue that DLC is a great thing for gaming, but it must be done in a way that adds to a game experience rather than just extending it.

The Good

If DLC is really done well, then you should want to play the DLC even more than you want to play the original content. A great example of this is Call of Duty: World at War. I thought that WaW was a mediocre game that fell short of the expectations created by Infinity Ward's CoD games, but the game did have one thing going for it and that was the co-op modes. Realizing that the Nazi Zombie mode was most players' favorite feature, Treyarch made DLC that not only extended the game with more maps for that mode, but also added onto the complexity of Nazi Zombies allowing hardcore players to get a more satisfying experience.

Rhythm games have also done a good job of using DLC to both add to and extend a gaming experience. Rock Band players start with a good number of tracks that appeal to a wide audience, but players can use the music store to tailor their set list to their own unique tastes. If you're a fan of metal music then you can take your copy of Rock Band and turn it into Metal Band by buying fifty metal tracks. Or you can turn your copy into Classic Rock Band by buying music from The Who and Boston. Rock Band DLC allows people to add their favorite kind of music and therefore add their favorite gaming experiences.

The Bad

Mass Effect was a great game because it which allowed you to make decisions throughout the game that impacted the story. The gameplay was fun, but I have better shooter games sitting in my closet than Mass Effect. The reason that people played Mass Effect was for the involving story, so it would stand to reason that any DLC that Bioware released would play off the strength of the story and add an interesting little side quest.

The "Bring Down the Sky" DLC for Mass Effect failed to add to the game and instead only extended it. It's easy to spot BDtS as filler when you look at some elements of the mission. In BDtS you are repeatedly asked to do several of a simple task, which is almost the definition of filler. The game wants you to go to three survey stations, then activate a few fusion torches, then you go to the main facility and fight a horde of enemies before facing the final boss. There are only two interesting conversations in the entirety of BDtS even though conversations are what makes Mass Effect interesting to begin with.

BDtS demonstrates the danger in developers doing DLC when they don't understand what made their game good to begin with. Mass Effect had a strong narrative with interesting characters and conversations throughout the game. Bioware has shown that it doesn't mind using classic game theory (e.g. Prisoner's Dilemma) in Knights of the Old Republic and it used a game theory type of situation in BDtS, but they had only one such situation in the entire hour or two of the DLC. Developers need to insist that their DLC is of the same quality as the original game otherwise it will be short on ideas and not add to the original game.

The Ugly

Mass Effect's DLC is bad because it added filler and very little of what was good in the game to begin with. Ugly DLC is ugly, because rather than improve the game or just make it longer, it makes the game worse. Making a game worse with DLC is not as difficult a task you might imagine, though it's really only possible in multiplayer games. There are a couple of examples of this, but one of the easiest examples is also one of the oldest.

Battlefield 2 was a very popular PC game that sold millions of copies, so the developer (DICE) decided to sell expansion packs and DLC. One of the DLC (and the expansion pack) added new weapons that only players who had bought those packs would have. DICE then allowed players of the expansion packs to use these weapons in games with players who didn't have these packs. The result was a slight unbalance in gameplay. It wasn't a huge deal, so there wasn't a whole lot of backlash, but it was poor decision on DICE's part. It's great when DLC adds on to the experience of players, but it should never subtract from the experience of other players. Players should never feel compelled to purchase DLC to be competitive in a game.