That's right folks, the vacation's over, and it's time for another proper edition of everyone's favorite gaming mailbag, Burning Questions. I'm the guy with the splotchy tan, Alex Navarro. While I was away last week, GameSpot Hardware monkeys James Yu and Sarju Shah took over the big electronic bag o' mail, and I think they did a dandy job with it. But they also took a jab at my choice of vacation spots, so guess what? They're not in this week's edition at all. Hah! Take that you motherless...er, right, anyway, we're back to the typical bag format, and we've got a great one for you. This week, we stop to consider Bungie's feelings on big Billy Gates saying that Halo 3 will be out next year, go in depth with the concept of episodic content, wonder out loud about where Midway's sports lineup can go from here, and bring back the Rantjob of the Week. To you I say read, write, and be merry!

Big-Mouthed Bill

Alex, I have an important question that would be interesting to a lot of people I'm sure. Anyway, is it just me, or does it seem like Microsoft is screwing over Bungie? Microsoft is releasing info that a new Halo is coming soon, yet Bungie denies there is even a such game. While I'm positive there is a new Halo coming out for the Xbox 360, why does Bill Gates go and ruin the surprise? And if it is released when the PS3 comes out, Bungie's going to be ruined. A year and a half is not enough time for a game. If Microsoft rushes them into making it quickly rather than well, Halo will be remembered as just a regular video game because people will remember this one in the long run. So I guess my overall question is: Do you agree with me that Microsoft is preventing Bungie from making the game they [Bungie] want it to be? I hope they delay Halo 3 another year or so just like they did Halo 2 (if it really is coming out that soon).

Calvin Babaganoosh
Amish Country

First off, no matter what happens, Bungie won't be ruined. If Halo 3 sucks by some miracle of chance, Bungie will still get to keep making games. It would take a royal screw up of Daikatana proportions to make Bungie tank, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

With that said, yeah, the pressure's definitely on, and on fierce. Maybe this was sort of the plan all along, and Bungie was fully prepared for this contingency. I somehow don't think that Bill Gates would completely blindside his own game division, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was one big, unhappy corporate mandate that Bungie had no choice in, either. It is probably not necessarily pleased about the situation, but I don't think it was blindsided, either. Any Bungie employee would be welcome to write in and tell us what they think (though I somehow don't think that's going to happen).

So, is Microsoft screwing Bungie? Maybe a little. That's only assuming that it can actually firmly plan to hold to that date. I'm not altogether convinced of that. -- A.N.

Where's my NHL Hitz?

Hey Alex,
So now that Midway is making Blitz: The League without the NFL license at all because of the EA/NFL deal, will all other of its sports titles follow this path? Only one of them still has a official license which is sharing with other companies (The NHL Hitz franchise). So I guess Midway sports wouldn't try to make NHL Hitz with the NHL license rules, while all of its other games have the fighting, trash talking and steroid taking in them? Right? Right?

Richard Padilla
Kauai, Hawaii

Midway's been pretty quiet about any future sports offerings beyond Blitz: The League. I've tried having a few conversations with assorted folk over there, and they've all kind of told me the same thing, which is that they were just waiting to see how things went with the NHL before they committed to anything. I would assume that now that the NHL is back in the swing of things, it is probably going to wait and see how Blitz is received by critics and buyers. If people are receptive to the game, they might go in the exact same direction with the Hitz series. Then again, the Hitz games have been consistently good for a while, whereas the last couple of Blitz games weren't exactly brilliant. Plus, with the NHL likely in utter desperation for any licensing money it can get while it tries to rebuild, it might be willing to just let Midway go nuts with the license. Don't expect anything like that from the NBA, though. It seems pretty content with how the Ballers franchise made its debut, and will likely continue in that direction. As for the Slugfest games, I imagine those will probably just stay how they've been: wacky, but not so much that they'd lose the license. -- A.N.

The Next Episode

Why is it when some games are made now-a-days they are planned in more than one part like Advent Rising and Halo? I can understand Halo doing well and Bungie wanting to make another one, but with Advent Rising they planned out a trilogy right off the bat. Why don't they make longer games instead of breaking them into multiple parts? It seems like games are being made as serials like Advent Rising or sequels-turned-serial like Halo.

I hate it when a game comes out and becomes so popular that they make a sequel and decide to split it into two parts to make a trilogy just to make more money or create more hype. We all know that Halo did this very same thing--they could have easily worked hard on it and released Halo 2 (which would include the now Halo 3) before Xbox 360 is released. It wouldn't matter if it was released close to the new system if it is really backward compatible.

In books I never liked serials much because it was just a way an author could release a book each year or so, which is kinda cheating. If I'm going to pay full price for games they better have more than 15 hours of 1 player stuff and some incentive to play it again, and I don't want to be tricked into having to buy another game because this one had a cliff hanger ending.

I'll thank you in advance for your insight or insults directed at my I.Q.

Oh and can you ask Jeff where Let's GameSpot went?

Neale Nearing
Halifax, N.S. (Canada)

I'll spare you the insults to your IQ...this time. I asked Jeff about Let's GameSpot, and he said "Be careful what you ask for... you just might get it." No, seriously, that's what he said. Could he be a little more melodramatic? Sheesh.

The reason this trilogy trend has become so pervasive lately is for the exact reasons you cited: franchises are the way to make money, and if you catch people in such a way that they just have to find out what happens next, that's another $50 you can charge. In the case of Halo, the problem wasn't so much that Bungie wanted to continue the story in Halo 3, it was the way that Bungie left the story at the end that was complete crap. As for Advent Rising, well, we'll see if that whole trilogy thing even happens. Considering Majesco's financial state and the fact that the first game didn't meet sales (or quality) expectations, the possibility of two more of those games seems...tenuous, at best. Anyway, yeah, the trilogy thing probably won't be so much of a thing for very long. The thing you've got to watch out for is... -- A.N.

I've recently become convinced that I will love the use of episodic content in the next-generation of games, assuming it happens. There really is not much of a downside to this format of releasing games, in my opinion. While it may be frustrating that you can only play so much of a game's story before it stops you, think of how much more you could accomplish if you were forced to stop. People like me tend to get caught up in a game and all of a sudden the day's over and I was locked in my basement all day. Maybe we could all finally make it outside (while the sun is out) on a regular basis. Or, if you DO want to stay inside all day, this would give you a chance to play a lot more games at a time and reduce backlog immensely.

From a business perspective, I think it's a great idea. Think about when you play a really awesome demo for a game: all you want to do is keep going, but the jerks that put the demo together decided that you'd gone far enough. If it's an episode... think you're gonna want to buy the next one when it's released? Bet you will. Also, it seems like it would relieve at least a LITTLE BIT of pressure on developers to finish an entire game on one set deadline. Perhaps by the time they release the first episode, they still have the last few episodes to debug and put the final touches on. (I guess I'm making a lot of assumptions here and maybe that's not possible.)

There are other positives to using episodic content, but I've just realized that I haven't even really asked a question (besides rhetorically) and that's sort of supposed to be the point of this thing. So... uh... what do you think about episodic content for games?

Mike Holody
Clarkston, MI

Oh episodic content, what a love/hate opinion I have of you. It's clear to see that you're really excited about the notion of episodic content in gaming Mike, and I really hate to be Captain Bring-Down when I don't necessarily have to be, so I'll preface the rest of my statements by saying that yeah, getting games in episodic form could be really cool. There are, however, a number of buts that have to be dealt with first.

For starters, who's to say that developers are actually going to be able to keep the episodes flowing? Anyone remember a little EA game by the name of Majestic? The crazy full-motion video game about wacky government conspiracies that was released in episodic form? I do believe that around five episodes of that game were ever released before the project gassed out. And no, I don't think it got to finish up the story. What's to stop that from happening over and over again? Developers making weaker and shorter products only to end up not being able to actually release the entirety of their games, simply because the publishers weren't making enough money. See the dilemma?

Plus, there's the whole matter of pricing. With all the talk on Microsoft's part about microtransactions, you can't help but wonder just how micro those transactions will be. We already know that games will be around $60 at launch for the 360, so if you're buying a $60 360 game, and you find out that you only get a portion of the product for that initial payment and have to download more over time (or, even more shadily, pay for more of said product over time), then you're kind of getting the shaft. And not the friendly, crime-fighting, Richard Roundtree Shaft either.

So, in conclusion, episodic content has a potential for an upside, but until we know more about how publishers plan to use it, it also has a dark and looming downside, too. -- A.N.

Point/Counterpoint

Hey there,
I recently picked up a PSP with Ridge Racer and Metal Gear Ac!d (and naturally, Lumines will be soon to follow), and I've had some fun putting videos and photos on my handy little system. Basically, I think this device is really awesome, especially compared to the Nintendo DS. I've seen it, I've played with it, and frankly, nothing will convince me that dual, touch-screen gaming is a particularly good idea (especially when married with nintendo 64-era graphics). My friends agree, and yet the DS keeps selling into the millions; is Nintendogs REALLY that fun? Does the Nintendo name really carry enough weight that Mario 64 with worse controls can move millions of units? What's your take on all of this?

Aaron Fitzpatrick
Toronto, Canada

First off, don't sell the DS short yet. As I've said time and time again here on this very feature, the upcoming DS lineup is super promising. Recent games like Meteos and Kirby: Canvas Curse are good examples of that.

Anyway, to answer your question...yes, the Nintendo name does carry enough weight, especially in the handheld market, to get it the kind of sales the system has enjoyed thus far. At least, that's what sold the systems. The game attach rate is still very low last I'd heard (something like two per system, or something), though I imagine that'll change over time. But, to answer your question...yes, Nintendo's name pretty much sold the majority of those initial units all by itself. -- A.N.

I'm sick of people saying PSP is better then DS because it has better graphics, or Xbox is better then PS2 because of better graphics. Why do people play games just to look at them? I understand having good graphics is important but substituting good graphics for good gameplay is pointless! I don't know about you but I think that as long as the game is fun it's a good game. Take Animal Crossing for example, the graphics look like those for the N64, but it's so fun people are still playing it to this day! And I can name loads of GBA games that are fun but don't have top of the line graphics. Why do so many people consider better games as games with better graphics?

Zsky2
Earth

I already covered the majority of my thoughts on this subject in this week's Rant of the Week, but I'll just add that what, precisely, is making you think that PSP games don't have good gameplay? Yeah, there are a few crap titles on that system, but have you played Lumines? Or Wipeout? Ridge Racer? Tony Hawk? Twisted Metal? Right. Play those, then get back to me. KTHXBYE. -- A.N.

Summertime Geisting

In the last edition of Burning Questions (7/1/05) you said, and I quote, "The summertime seems like the perfect opportunity for companies to put out a few great, though maybe not exceptionally high-profile, games that will get way more attention from those stuck home with nothing better to do than they would during the horridly crowded holiday season." Geist is one of those relatively low-profile games which, as far as we know so far, is coming out in August right now. My question is, this: Is Nintendo doing this on purpose to make sure Geist gets a good amount of attention that it otherwise might not, seeing as this game really hasn't been hyped up by Nintendo, or did the delays just happen to push it back into the summer months?

Jay Topiwala
Clarksville

I think this is one of those cases where the delays just kind of planted the game in its current release date purely by happenstance. But yeah, Geist is certainly getting the benefit of the summertime drought. Not quite as much as, say, if it had been released in July, the driest of all dry months, but yes, getting the game out there before the big Q4 rush can only help Geist, not hurt it. -- A.N.

You Can Patch my Game, but Can you Patch my Broken Heart?

I bought Rome: Total War, and the reviews gave it a respectable 9.1. There were a few problems regarding AI (A battle consisted of setting up, 30 seconds or less of combat, and 85 percent of the battle ending up in killing 2000 fleeing men with your 108 calvary.) Now, Creative Assembly is supposedly following the "two patch rule". They gave us 1.1, which essentially did nothing but nerf elephants in the most tiny of ways, and "aid" multiplayer connectivity, which STILL sucks. Then they said they were coming up with a "quality" patch, which really solved only a few issues, then added A LOT MORE problems, and now they refuse to put out another patch, and probably expect us to shell out money for Barbarian Invasion to fix things up.

My question is, what's up with companies giving a substandard product where the problems can only be seen after weeks and months of playing (I'm sure JO only got a few days at it), insert more problems into the game, and refuse to give further free support when we're supposed to get a perfectly functioning product just to milk more sales for their EP. Hell, Blizzard just released ANOTHER Starcraft patch not too long ago.

Michael Liao
San Jose, California

Strategy games? Patches? Yeesh, this sounds like a job for Jason Ocampo.

"Ah, patches, the necessary evil of PC (and soon, console) gaming. There are plenty of reasons why games ship with bugs, but when you get down to it, the main reason is money. Salaries for programmers and artists are expensive, so publishers and developers have to draw a line somewhere and ship a game. Why don't they simply keep working on a game until it is bug-free? Because it's not that easy. Regular PCs are a nightmare of potential hardware and software conflicts, so the best that developers can do is nail down known problems before launch, and then deal with unexpected problems after launch with a patch.

So why don't they keep issuing patches for a game? Because the decision to issue a patch usually belongs to the publisher, since someone has to pay for it. Let's say you have a team of 20 or 30 developers spend a month working on a patch. That's anywhere between $50,000 and $100,000 in salary that has to be paid. Developers don't have that kind of cash, so the publisher has to pay for it. The publisher takes a look at the sales numbers and does a cost/benefit analysis, and if the value of a patch is more than the cost of the patch, then you'll get a patch. And patches don't just cost money, they also cost time. For example, patches need to be tested by the publisher's QA team, and that means taking the testers off an upcoming game (and increasing the odds of a bug slipping by in that product) so that they can test the patch.

Blizzard can afford to keep patching Starcraft because it was a phenomenal success that made an obscene amount of money. However, it's one of those rare exceptions in the industry. Most games struggle to make money, and publishers make a conscious decision to only fund a patch or two for each game. In fact, it's even budgeted ahead of time, because publishers know that PC games always require a patch. So unless the game is a huge hit, don't expect more than one or two patches for it. After that, it's far more cost effective for the publisher and developer to work on a brand-new game or expansion that will generate new revenue, rather than burn money on a product that has already generated most of the revenue that it was going to generate in the first place." -- Jason Ocampo

Next-Gen Graphics Scores

I've seen a lot of complaints that the graphics on the new consoles coming out look only to be a slight upgrade on those available on the Xbox at the moment. When launch games for the next generation come out, how do you plan to tackle the rating of graphics? Will you just see an improvement on what graphics are like now and say "This is better than stuff now, 10 for graphics" or, if the games don't come up to scratch, will you say "Not good enough, 8 or 9"? Thanks for your time.

Andrew Lyttle
Belfast, Northern Ireland

We'll rate the graphics on next-gen consoles the same way we rate graphics on any other consoles--against the standards of each specific platform. For instance, when the 360 launches, we'll have a few launch titles to work with. Obviously all those games are going to look a lot nicer than a standard Xbox game, and they absolutely should, since the hardware is so much more powerful. We know what these systems ought to be capable of, and there's plenty of aesthetic qualities to judge graphics on beyond pure technological factors. Trust me when I say that it won't be that gigantic of a challenge. We've done this a couple of times before. -- A.N.

Well, I think we're about done doin' it to you this week. Want to see your question or at least your name (or whatever stupid fake name you've come up with) featured in the mailbag? Use that silly little form at the bottom of the page. Of course, you won't see it if you're not a registered member. It ain't that hard to do, so what are you, chicken? C'mon McFly, sign up for GameSpot, and get on Burning Questions. Once again, I've been Alex Navarro, and something about this story gave me a deep feeling of coldness and despair when I read it.