HL2 Not Required For Episode 1 77
Eurogamer reports that Half-Life 2 will not be required to run Episode 1, the first content pack for Valve's hit game. From the article: "Half-Life 2: Episode 1 won't actually require Half-Life 2 to play, Valve's explained, and although the game will be 'four to six hours' long, marketing director Doug Lombardi reckons it's 'markedly richer' in terms of content quality ... The change from Aftermath to Episode 1 was 'simply a name change' he says, when asked about the shift to episodic content - which wasn't a shift at all, he adds, since 'the format of episodic releases was decided before Half-Life 2 was made available'."
Re:$20? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the second article where I have seen a lot of complaining about the price point. Consider the four to six hours of re-playable entertainment you will receive with the expansion (sorry, episode) for $20.
Considering most new releases on DVD are usually around $18 - 20, why is it unfair that Valve charge $20? IMHO, I think the price is entirely reasonable and will definitely purchase it when it comes out.
Re:$20? (Score:1, Interesting)
Story in World of Warcraft: Go farm 2,000 bug carapaces.
Story in Half-Life: Mankind's hubris has opened a portal to an alien world, and it's up to you to save Earth from not only the invading hordes of creatures that ensue, but the treachery of your own government.
Umm, yeah, I think I'll go for the $20/4-hour option, Alex, and go do something else with the rest of my life.
Re:$20? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a false comparision. Half-Life 2 Episode 1 isn't up against movies. It's up against other video games who can potentially offer a better dollars per fun-hour ratio. $5 per hour is pretty expensive for video games. Suggesting that it's all okay by comparing it to movies is as silly as suggesting that both movies (about $4/hour locally) and video games are grossly overpriced because I assuming a moderately regular play schedule I can enjoy myself for about $0.37/hour (Assuming a $90 investment [wizards.com], 2 year lifespan, playing about 30 times a year for 4 hours a game).
The reality is that different forms of entertainment are not interchangable. I've happily paid $125 for 3 hours of entertainment [cirquedusoleil.com]; that doesn't mean I'm willing to pay $400 for a game I expect to play for ten hours.
Even assuming we can compare such forms of entertainment, it's hardly a clear win. The proposed Half-Life pricing is roughly $5/hour. Locally I pay around $4/hour for first run movies. If I'm willing to catch a matinee, I can pay about $3/hour. Budget theatres after a few months: $1/hour. Rental: $1/hour, assuming one other person watches it with me. When I purchase a first person shooter, I'm hoping for about 15 hours of gameplay in exchange for $50; roughly $3.50/hour. At $5/hour Half-Life Episode 1 is expensive. However, if it's as good or better than HL2, I'm willing to consider it.
Re:$20? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't quite understand this obsession with duration. If I go to watch a film, I don't feel disappointed if it only lasts 90 minutes compared to one lasting 2 hours. Nor would I pick the second over the first on that basis; some films just take a different amount of time to tell their story.
Most games I've played are packed with filler. Half Life and sequel managed it OK (with only about a third of the game made up of tedious bits) but some, like Doom3 and Halo were ridiculous. Why should I fight my way through another corridor of zombies almost identical to the previous ten when they could make it a bit more concentrated? "Just condense it!" I keep thinking, "I want to get to the fun bits!"
I could then use the time saved to go out and do something more interesting. Or even play another game.