The International House of Mojo

Thanks for the link to Sam & Max video feature. Was very nice to see it.

Was very nice to see it, because afterwards,and during, I got a sense of believing in "LucasArts" again. Though, LucasAts is known as TellTale these days (right?)

I really want to like Telltale's games, I really do, but everything I've seen from them has, for want of a better word, lacked that certain spark of appeal. Their games seem somehow tired and souless. It's hard to explain any better than that. Sam'n'Max looks to be the same.

im not jumping up and down for the next bone game.. but i think brendan ferguson dave grossman and steve purcell are gonna make this a great game.. its not gonna be freelance police(the hit the road sequel we all wanted) but from what ive seen its gonna be somethin very good

I wasn't majorly excited about Telltale either, but then I took the plunge and bought the Bone games, and I was really, really impressed. If you haven't already, I'd suggest playing one of their full games. It will give you a much fairer idea than screenshots and demos, and it won't break the bank.

suddenly the episodic model is lookin great.. that means we get 6 episodes(12 hours of gameplay) in 6 months..sounds great 2 me

How much is a single episode, if it is #13, then you end up paying $78 already for 12 hours. This episodic stuff is such a rip-off. For $80, as normal price for a pc games is $40, you should be getting two full length PC games each of at least 10 hours of lenght.

If you're so concerned about getting ripped of then wait until the entire season is done then subscribe to Gametap. You'll get it all for $9.99.

By the way, why is everyone only discussing price in terms of the whole thing together? Telltale's treating these games as individual products, and so should you. If episode 1 costs, say, 7.99, then it should be a matter of whether or not you're willing to pay that much for one episode. Grouping the games together as if they were one and estimating hours and comparing prices to other retail games (which aren't made by independent developers) is a bit over the top. Besides which, Telltale might sell the whole season for a smaller price when it's all over.

They've already said it'll be less than the Bone games.

Agreed. A transparent rip-off at that. It's no wonder that so many developers are trying to jump on the 'episodic gaming' bandwagon these days. It's an excuse to pruduce less, recycle more and charge a hefty price for it.

If you think episodic games are a poor deal then that's fine, but don't think developers are doing them because it gives them some sort of excuse to be lazy.

Nope, it's to milk their customers. How ever you look at it, cost per gameplay-hour significantly increases with the episodic release model.

Historically, any industry that approaches the point of not being economically viable has to evolve or die. I would argue that the games industry is rapidly approaching this point, and thus is looking for a way to sustain itself. To date, episodic gaming seems like the most viable option? either that, or you stick to only making games around a proven franchise? like Call of Duty 73.

* Episodic games are funded through purchases as they're being developed - the sales from episodes 1 and 2 work to fund episode 3 - allowing the developer to stay in business and make a profit long enough to finish their game.

* Since each episode takes less time to come out than a full game, you as a gamer get content to play much more quickly than you would with a full game. Instead of waiting 3-4 years for a game you can wait 3-6 months.

* Developers don't have to put all their eggs in one basket - instead of having to spend years of their lives dedicated to a project and then have it not do as well as they expected, they can only put one year into something, and then turn out an improved followup episode in a shorter turnaround.

Hypothetical example: If Sam & Max Freelance Police had been episodic we probably would have in fact gotten to play it, since instead of a bunch of arbitrary marketing hoodoo judging whether the game lives or dies before it's even out, they could have released a few of the cases which were complete and moved from there.

Episodic gaming isn't done to milk the consumer. It's done because structurally it's advantageous to independent and/or off-the-beaten-path game developers. The games get out to gamers sooner, risks and crazy ideas can be carried out in your game's design without gambling on years of work and millions of dollars, and the team can build improvements into each subsequent title over a far shorter period of time instead of having to wait for a "full sequel" to add new features or refine gameplay.

Great sales pitch, but there is no denying the fact that cost per gameplay-hour significantly increases. As a consumer, I am spending the money, even thought in the end if I get out of an episodic game something equal to a AAA title, the fact is the I'll end up paying more, at least this is evident from currently available episodic games.

Eh, Half Life 2 and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time are two of my favorite games in the last 3-4 years. Both are around 12 hours long on average, and both cost between $40 and $50 when they were released. Half Life 2: Episode 1 is about 5-6 hours long and costs about $20. Bone: The Great Cow Race is about 4 hours long and costs about $13. That seems about exactly in line price-per-hour with the average modern-day full-length retail game.

Maybe the problem you're experiencing is that as production costs have gone up across the board all games have gotten shorter. Or, maybe you've become older and are better at games now than you used to be. (For instance I can beat Mega Man 2 or Contra in a couple of evenings, but it took me weeks when those games first came out when I was a little kid). And don't say "What about Oblivion, it's ridiculously long?" because that game is one of the very very few exceptions to the rule.

I have some choice words about the popular rise of the concept of quantifying your game experience into "hours of game per dollar" and the implied disregard of the quality per hour of the experience that goes along with that, but I'll save that for later.

That wasn't a freaking sales pitch. We would not get Sam & Max if it wasn't sold this way, period. LucasArts was once the biggest adventure developer ever, and it canceled the most anticipated adventure at the time simply because they didn't think it would sell. LucasArts is a big company with lots of money, how is a independent developer supposed to pull it off? If you want to be a complete dickweed about comparing every hour and every cent and conclude that you're being ripped off like the frugal genius you are, then fine. But everyone else simply judges game by whether or not the price is worth the experience. I've played longer games that were less satisfying than shorter games, so this dollar per hour nonsense means little to me. They said each game would cost less than bone, which is $12.99. If the game is cheaper than that and a good Sam & Max game, who could complain? Why are they necessarily ripping you off by doing that? Each game has its own production costs, and they're probably hoping to, you know, recoup them (at a not at all unreasonable price).

Why is it that adventure gamers claim they'll do anything to bring the good old days back, said when Sam & Max was canceled that all they wanted was another Sam & Max game, and now when they're finally getting it they suddenly become inexplicably ultra conservative when it comes to the damn distribution manner? It's just like the stupid demands about interface, lack of any action elements, etc. That's why we see garbage like Syberia all the time and no genuinely good adventure games. (But who cares, at least it's 2D and point and click and boring!) How about we give Telltale a chance, hmm?

Hey, everyone (first post after years of lurking on these pages).

I don't think the price is an issue, especially when bearing in mind that most of us (here, at least) are between 25-30 years old (how sad is that?). It's not like when I was 12 or something, had to work for a whole summer just so I could buy Sam & Max when it first came out; so money or episodic is not an issue (although I will be waiting for the whole bundle, personally).

What troubles me is that the game will be 2 hours long or so. Who here wasn't disappointed to find out that they could complete Full Throttle in 45 minutes (if I remember correctly). The whole interaction lasted for 45 minutes (excluding cut-scenes). Sure, I loved the game, but it was just too short. Short episodes (even in the bundle), would simply seem unsatisfactory. I'd definitely prefer a longer & well thought-out game; even Full Throttle with its extra long cut-scenes and shortlived gameplay seems more welcoming than hit-and-run type of games.

I'll cut this off here, since it's getting to be a long post as it is.

Who cares how long Full Throttle can be beaten in when you're rushing through it? Since when are adventure games about a race to the finish? They're about the story, the characters, the puzzles. Full Throttle was shorter than most, but I didn't feel like I was ripped off because it was also one of the more satisfying. It remains to be seen whether or not Sam & Max episodes will be satisfactory or not, but there's reason to be hopeful. Also, the implication that a shorter game can't be well thought out is silly.

I was merely pointing out that a short game is not as rewarding as a longer one. I'm just saying that I would consider a 6 hour Sam and Max episode much more satisfying than a "short-burst" game. Full Throttle had the long cut-scenes to make up for it, so it didn't matter much, since the experience helped one to be immersed even more so into the game.

Anyway, fingers crossed, Sam & Max won't be a disappointment.

But your gonna get a new 2-4 hour game every month, and while each game can be played 'standalone', there is an overall plot running through all episodes in a season. This will alleviate the limitations of story development that must be wrapped up in a small number of locations / time that is inherant in episodic games.

Quoting jp-30: "there is an overall plot running through all episodes in a season".

My bad, I thought they'd be totally stand-alone. I guess that would make it a bit more interesting & worthwhile.

Listen to this man.

A quality comment. Anyone who seriously looks down on Telltale for using an episodic model wants lining up and shooting in the head.

The alternative is 2004 happening all over again, because serious games take serious money to develop. Even LucasArts couldn't justify the cost of finishing their Sam & Max sequel, so what makes you think Telltale is in a position to?

Going episodic will enable us to enjoy what is looking to be some classic Sam & Max because of Jake's points. Stop whining you pack of dogs.

I was going to write a lengthy reply in response to your message (and, in general, to all of you who support Telltale's distribution method), but instead I'll simply say this: Your opinion is overly subjective and your logic flawed.

No, I can't resist:

The reason Lucasarts can't justify the cost of developing adventure games is because they do not produce as large a profit as their [i]Star Wars[/i] and [i]Indiana Jones[/i] franchises. This does not mean that their adventure games were not profitable. Telltale has no comparable franchises to Lucasarts big two, so this excuse is not applicable to their situation.

A large part of the cost of game development is related to the method and practices of game development. What I mean is that game developers are often wasteful; they could achieve the same results with far greater efficiency if they revised their working practices. Bloated teams, poor planning and leadership, unreasonable deadlines and even locating your business in an expensive area of the world all raise development costs.

There is so much more that I would add to this, and many more points that I would like to address, but I don't have the time to write more.

One final note: People who disagree with the majority opinion here on mixnmojo are not whining. Show some maturity, please.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I worked for many years in the game industry. But, yes, what would I know about anything?

>> it's a major international publisher of video games.<<

With all due respect, what the hell do publishers know about the dynamics and efficiencies of development teams? I've worked for most of the last 10 years for a multinational record company. Doesn't mean I have any authority into the most cost-effective way bands should record their albums.

I would say that a publisher knows a *lot* about the dynamics and efficiencies of development teams. Or do you think they invest their money blindly? I forgot to add that my ex-exployer is also a developer too.

So you say, but what you may know about game development you obviously lack in knowledge about the two companies in question. Exactly what was your reason for going off on how game developers can be lazy and inefficient if you weren't trying to imply it about Telltale? Under most circumstances I would consider my reply above to have been pretty lame, but in making assumptions about LucasArts and Telltale, especially in regard to laziness, you don't know what you're talking about.

No one knows for sure why Sam & Max 2 was cancelled, but it's easy enough to guess. Sure, a large company may cancel a game because they don't think it will be profitable ENOUGH, but it's pretty clear that at the time LucasArs was in a financial hole, and they were likely trying to cut their losses to the point that they'd rather forfeit the money they spent on development rather than spend the money necessary to releaseit. Again, we have no official answer, but when a company ships three huge bombs and cancels a game that's already been in a year of development (FT2) before losing their president, and at that point cancels a game that happens to be a graphic adventure at a time where the need for marketing muscle was about to become a factor...well, any explanation but yours makes the most sense.

What I really don't understand is how you say LucasArts can't finance a full-fledged adventure because it isn't worth it to them, and then suggest that Telltale should be able to because it isn't dependent on huge, sure-fire licenses. What? You do recall that Telltale is an independent company while LucasArts has the monetary resource of, um, George Lucas, right? You basically just said that a company with little money should be expected to develop a large project more than a company with a lot of money.

What happened? Your company go out of business?

Nope - it's a major international publisher of video games. I just got tired of the lack of artistry and decided to change career.

So, what do you do now?

I spend the last three years as a university lecturer in China. I'm taking a break from that at the moment to further my studies before moving to Japan. I fail to see what this has to do with the subject at hand though.

Just wondered if you'd found something more artistically rewarding.

Quoting justluke; "The reason Lucasarts can't justify the cost of developing adventure games is because they do not produce as large a profit as their Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises. This does not mean that their adventure games were not profitable. Telltale has no comparable franchises to Lucasarts big two, so this excuse is not applicable to their situation."

WTF?

Witty reply, Oscar Wilde, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. You don't understand the above quote? If that's the case I recommend you calmly try to read it again.

This is what you are saying;

'Because Telltale don't have a Star Wars or Indy Jones scale franchise to lean on, they can't subsidise less profitible (adventure) games as LucasArts did.'

So I do not understand you moaning about the (assumed) price-point of Sam & Max episodes.

Without A Star Wars style cash-cow, how the hell are Telltale supposed to survive without shaking up the business model somewhat?

You don't have to subsidise profitable games, because *they are profitable*.

My point is that Lucasarts don't make adventure games any more because their big franchises are *more* profitable, not because their adventure games did not produce a profit.

Telltale are not in this position. They need to shake up their developmental model rather than their business model. There is no reason why adventure games should cost as much to develop as Lucasarts used to spend.

If LucasArts' Sam & Max Freelance Police was *profitible*, why did it get cancelled shortly before its planned release?

Because it was not as profitable as a big franchise game, so it was difficult to justify the allocation of manpower to complete Sam & Max.

Let me put it another way. If you had the choice of investing your money in two companies - one would earn you a 10% profit, and the other a 50% profit - which would you choose? They're both profitable companies, but you'd invest your time and money in the most profitable one, right?

It's the same for Sam'n'Max.

PS. You seem very angry, there's no reason for that. Please don't take my opinions personally.

I'm not angry, but I am perplexed. Which development practices of Telltale do you suggest they change so that they can make the Sam and Max game(s) that you are wanting?

I think I've written enough about this topic. Let's just agree to disagree.

I like how thin these threads get.

Obviously these comments are using an abdominizer.

Let's see how thin we can get! This diet works miracles!

"Women in London must have learned not to breathe" (guess the quote).

lol

There must be a limit.

THE ONLY LIMIT IS YOUR IMAGINATION!

(Though it will also start to break the page pretty soon. The first person to do this looses.)

(it's already broken)

Is it? I can't see it. Well, what happens if you use long words? Floccinaucinihilipilification

Floccinaucinihilipilification?

Okay, it's broken...

Don't jump to conclusions about pricing.

hmm... I see we get a good glimpse of Mr. Bosco. We only knew the name from "Bosco's Guns, Liquor, Baby Needs" in "Hit the Road".

Don't forget when Mr. Bosco was generously giving away his profits to the underprivileged, ski-mask wearing youth of the neighborhood again.

could you make out what that poster in the background says? It's in the screenshot with that woman Sybil. It says "Buy Not'Cho's: Free Toilet Brush with...". I can't make out the rest.

"...every purchase"

I'm also loving the terror warning on the toilet. Good to see that it's going to be relevant and non-pc.

I just saw the video at 1up.com. Very decent stuff. Plus I think I saw a little bit of Computer Gaming World's Sam and Max article. It's showing what looks like a somewhat remake of "On the Road" board game, just showing 3d Sam and Max on the corner.

They say we get the pilot in October, then there's a break, and then from December through April we get monthly episodes.

And teasers in between episodes. Huzzah!

Yeah, that part looks really great. Very Arrested Development.

Don't jinx it by mentioning Arrested Development!

Monthly sounds great!

Now there's a Sam and Max fix I really need