A Game Idea

[azncutthroat]

I really like playing as a pilot, particularly in Bad Company 2, with its vast array of vehicles, of which the UH-60 Blackhawk is my favorite. In fact, I find piloting the helicopter to be a fun and, oddly, relaxing experience, despite the fact that I'm dodging RPGs, looking for people to repair my chopper, and dealing with angry team mates who like to shoot up my windshield.

So, my idea for a game is this: basically a pilot game where the player controls a variety of military vehicles from MBTs and APCs to helicopters and Ospreys, supporting bot-infantry who relay you missions from supply deliveries and unit transport to fire missions and bombardments. In other words, I'd like a whole game based off of CoD4's "Death From Above" AC-130 mission, with more vehicles and friendly/enemy bots.

 

[TheRocketeer]

You know, jet fighter games are a niche genre of their own, but I haven't heard of a game based around flying a helicopter since the SNES.

The sheer novelty of the premise could be both the game's greatest asset and its greatest liability. If a popular studio tried its hand at the concept, people might give it a whirl, just on a lark. But such novel gameplay will entail unique, unfamiliar controls that might not map very well to a controller, and might aggravate even interested gamers even if they are well-implemented.

I'd certainly play a game that claimed to be 'like Ace Combat, but in a chopper.'

 

[azncutthroat]

You know, jet fighter games are a niche genre of their own, but I haven't heard of a game based around flying a helicopter since the SNES.

The sheer novelty of the premise could be both the game's greatest asset and its greatest liability. If a popular studio tried its hand at the concept, people might give it a whirl, just on a lark. But such novel gameplay will entail unique, unfamiliar controls that might not map very well to a controller, and might aggravate even interested gamers even if they are well-implemented.

I'd certainly play a game that claimed to be 'like Ace Combat, but in a chopper.'

I've played a few Ace Combat games (admittedly only on the PS2), and it always felt as if I was playing independent of my allies on the ground, or for that matter the entire friendly side.

And it's not just limited to helicopters and jet fighters, mind you. Or even military vehicles of today; I'd like to pilot some vehicles in other games as "bonus missions" like Halo Pelicans and Longswords and Killzone dropships.

 

[TheRocketeer]

I've played a few Ace Combat games (admittedly only on the PS2), and it always felt as if I was playing independent of my allies on the ground, or for that matter the entire friendly side.

This is, depending on whom you ask, the genre's greatest strength or one of its biggest weaknesses. Almost every jet fighter game I've played- and I've played quite a few- is based around a war that you win essentially by yourself. If the ground forces ever do anything at all, its only due to your support. And, yes, all the PS2 Ace Combats are like this.

This is mainly because, without exception, these games are based essentially to service the age-old player empowerment fantasy. The whole genre is set up to tell the tried-and-true (if a bit out of place) story of the One True Hero bearing the troubles of the world on his back, and some games pull this off better than others. If you enjoy this setup, or at least don't mind it, then that's fine. But if you're looking for a more realistic military setting that makes you a part of the conflict rather than the world's only competent soldier, as you seem to be, I can certainly understand why you'd seem to leave empty-handed: there's simply nothing for this kind of player.

The current probably won't be much different. A lot of people expected HAWX to fulfill the role you seem to be looking for, since it had Tom Clancy's name on it, but it really didn't even attempt this. Ace Combat 6, on the other hand, seems to have chosen the whole 'integrated conflict' as its whole premise, and certainly does lean a lot farther in this direction (though perhaps only superficially, one could argue), especially given the series' roots.

 

[azncutthroat]

I've played a few Ace Combat games (admittedly only on the PS2), and it always felt as if I was playing independent of my allies on the ground, or for that matter the entire friendly side.

This is, depending on whom you ask, the genre's greatest strength or one of its biggest weaknesses. Almost every jet fighter game I've played- and I've played quite a few- is based around a war that you win essentially by yourself. If the ground forces ever do anything at all, its only due to your support. And, yes, all the PS2 Ace Combats are like this.

This is mainly because, without exception, these games are based essentially to service the age-old player empowerment fantasy. The whole genre is set up to tell the tried-and-true (if a bit out of place) story of the One True Hero bearing the troubles of the world on his back, and some games pull this off better than others. If you enjoy this setup, or at least don't mind it, then that's fine. But if you're looking for a more realistic military setting that makes you a part of the conflict rather than the world's only competent soldier, as you seem to be, I can certainly understand why you'd seem to leave empty-handed: there's simply nothing for this kind of player.

The current probably won't be much different. A lot of people expected HAWX to fulfill the role you seem to be looking for, since it had Tom Clancy's name on it, but it really didn't even attempt this. Ace Combat 6, on the other hand, seems to have chosen the whole 'integrated conflict' as its whole premise, and certainly does lean a lot farther in this direction (though perhaps only superficially, one could argue), especially given the series' roots.

Funny enough, I actually did look into HAWX because of one of the commercials for the game showing it as some sort of combined-arms game with a focus on aircraft.

And yeah, Ace Combat felt pretty lonely as the Only Competent Solider, which is a bit ironic considering I'm something of a solo player. I guess I like to show-off to other people.

 

[TheRocketeer]

Funny enough, I actually did look into HAWX because of one of the commercials for the game showing it as some sort of combined-arms game with a focus on aircraft.

And yeah, Ace Combat felt pretty lonely as the Only Competent Solider, which is a bit ironic considering I'm something of a solo player. I guess I like to show-off to other people.

Which PS2 AC's did you play? AC04 was probably the worst about this (well, assuming you don't like it, anyway). AC04's arcade blood was still very, very strong, and it showed in the gameplay. ACZ wasn't as bad, but Ace Combat 5 was definitely best about it, at least until 6 came along, due to commanding an actual squadron, and the number of missions in which you (again, a bit superficially) assist the country's ground, air, or sea forces.

Additionally, all Ace Combat games have a pretty novel way of trying to create the illusion of a unified conflict: the radio chatter. It might not seem all that important while you're playing, but I guarantee the missions' ambiance would have seemed all but nonexistent without the constant radio chatter from wingmen, allies, enemies, and civilian channels, all of which gives the game a bit of agency in providing a sense of impact to your actions beyond the scoring of points, and describing the flow and chaos of warfare on the ground, which technically doesn't really exist in the game as modeled and programmed.

Again, though, the real clincher is the gameplay, and the gampeplay itself is simply not conducive to the feel of an involved conflict in which you are a soldier, not an epic-level D&D character with WAY too much military hardware. Luckily for me, I'm fine with either approach, but it does concern me that a genre I love is essentially off-limits to people not enamored of a single tonal and narrative model.