Early Access and Narrative Work

by Rian

Of all things Valve is pushing, I find Early Access program to be easily abused because it demerits the narrative element of a game. Any games that are heavily based on its narrative or storytelling have limited shelf life; the moment it is released it will slowly sip through any and all social medias. But developers can choose not to use Early Access. The fault truly lies on the games that use Early Access and laser focus on the system’s weakness for its advantage.

In games released with Early Access, the principle behind the program requires the game to be focused primarily on the core gameplay. It can contain rough patches on graphics, on UI, or even unfinished ideas. Early Access, in many ways, share the same spirit as the crowdfunding: the developer presents the idea, gamers “buy” the game still in development, and the final product may or may not live up to what was presented. The big difference between the two programs stems from game as a medium — it doesn’t take all the working elements of a game to be a game.

Though there is no strict limit or requirement, games on Early Access generally have up to the first chapter or first act of the entire narrative. Again, generally speaking, many games often devote the first chapter as a tutorial and an appetizer to the universe it is setting up. Combined with the standard narrative practice, developers can release a game on Early Access without a fully developed narrative. The devs technically did not lie; they omitted the fact it lacks further narrative development.

A good game does not necessarily need a narrative. Classical games often made no attempt to build a story. Nobody cares why the blocks are falling in the world of Tetris, or why the Pac-Man is thrown in to the labyrinth filled with ghosts. Modern gamers expecting modern qualities are not interesting buying yet another Tetris or Pac-Man, when they likely have several in their library per devices, per editions, and etc. The deceptive games on Early Access appeal to the age-old practice, nonetheless, when confronted. However, if the game in question does not deliver the narrative it hyped, does it truly merit a look? Going back to dining analogy, would you be satisfied if you were served with molecular gastronomy themed salad starter then followed by meat and potatoes?

Several games I have written spiels on had allegedly designed its way around Early Access or 2 hours return window on Steam: its first chapter is either too different from the whole game, or the first chapter is the whole game. It’s troubling when a game needs to rewrite the introduction halfway through the game, and it’s even more troubling when half the recommendations floating on the internet are written well before the official release date of the game. Valve at least made it so the abandonware sold under Early Access banner would be more obvious; now it needs to brand a version control for the prospective buyers.