Game Ideas You Want To See

[happyninja42]

So, this is mostly just a thought experiment, of ideas for games, either existing franchises, or original ideas, that you'd like to see exist as a game. Stuff like spinoff games in a franchise you love. Continuation of a defunct franchise that you wish still put out material, stuff like that.

For me, the one I find myself most interested in, is the following, in trailer style, it would be introduced:

Cut to a landscape shot, flowing green fields, lush trees, wildlife, rivers, idyllic nature establishing shot. Camera pans up, to show a majestic castle, and under it appears the caption "Castle Hyrule"

Cut to a festival scene, the various denizens of Hyrule, in some celebration at the castle. Zelda mingles and chats with the people, smiling and socializing. The big doors open, and Link comes into the hall, to further cheers from the people. He goes up to Zelda, they hug in greeting, and proceed to just socialize for a few moments. Then, transition of time to show it's night, and the party has been ongoing for a bit, the sky suddenly darkens, ominous thunderclouds and lightning. Everyone looks alert, and glance around trying to see what's going on. Link gets up, sword and shield at the ready, looking around as well.

The main gates fly open, kicked in by a massive foot, as Ganon strolls into the room, flanked by soldiers of his own. They proceed to march towards the dais, and with no preamble, Ganon proceeds to launch a magical attack at Zelda. The energy is massive, and it begins to shatter the hall around them, mortar crumbling down, forcing the partygoers to flee and seek cover. With a massive beam of energy focused through Ganon's triforce, the attack is unleashed. Link dashes in front of Zelda, shield up, sword behind him, ready to strike after the attack, but it's too strong. It burns through his shield, and him, and through his triforce, passing on and into Zelda's chest. But something goes wrong, Ganon looks shocked at something. His plan for victory not working out exactly as he foresaw. The combination of the attack, through his triforce, and into the others, causes a conjunction of energy. And the flow of power, appears to disintegrate Link entirely, as it passes through him, and into the amulet on Zelda's neck, that contains her triforce. With a final, green wink of energy in the core of the triforce, it fades out, and a concussive blast detonates, screen going white. When vision returns, we see the Master Sword, in closeup, lying abandoned on the cobblestones. And in the trope of "the POV is stunned", the shot is blurry and the audio is muffled. What you can make out, as the camera swings around, is a ruined castle. The walls completely shattered, showing the landscape outside. A few people near the blast, run around in confusion and terror. The audio is mostly of a person, panting, struggling to breath. The POV glances down at the ground, and we see through forced perspective, a pair of slender hands, push us up to a standing position.

As the visual and audio elements begin to resolve into clarity, the camera pans around, and we can see through the ruined walls, down to the plains of Hyrule, that are now on fire, with the forces of Ganon, running around, conquering the hamlets and villas. The POV turns down again, to our chest, where we see the amulet of the triforce one last time. Then, the hand reaches out, and grasps the handle of the Master Sword. As the hand grabs it, the camera pans out, no longer POV, and we see a young woman from behind, stagger to her feet, framed by the destruction of her castle, and her kingdom on fire. She holds the sword at her side, and look around the ruins. Her posture changes from one of staggered recovery, to determination. Then the title card appears around her as she runs out the ruins of the keep doors.....

The Legend of Zelda.

No subtitles, no sequence number, just HER legend. The funny thing is, I'm not even a fan of the Zelda franchise, but I've always found it incredibly weird, that the title character, is pretty much never actually the character you play. So I think it would be a fun change up, to just have her be the hero for once, from start to finish. Link is the trapped person in need of rescue (from the amulet around her neck), and she's got to step up and defend her people directly. So that for once at least, The Legend of ZELDA, would actually be about Zelda.

Plus I always am a sucker for "passing the torch" kind of stories, where someone else has to step in and save the day, because the standard hero has been incapacitated. And given how insanely fluid the details of the Zelda franchise are from game to game, I don't think it's breaking concept at all to have this change up.

So that's my idea for a fun game I'd like to see exist, and how it would be presented.

What games would you like to see?

 

[CriticalGaming]

I would love to see a real Souls game done in a Sci-fi setting.

Deck 13 had tried with The Surge games, but anyone who has played those game can tell you that DEck 13 really tries, but they are not very good at it. They don't understand the difference between tough but fair and you fucking die now difficulty.


So i would love FromSoft to actually do a real Souls-like in a crazy cyberpunk setting, maybe do a crazy Matrix style thing where you're hub is you in the "Real" world, and your going into the computers to purge them of corruption that is enslaving the world.

I feel like that would be fucking fantastic. But maybe that's just me.

 

[happyninja42]

So i would love FromSoft to actually do a real Souls-like in a crazy cyberpunk setting, maybe do a crazy Matrix style thing where you're hub is you in the "Real" world, and your going into the computers to purge them of corruption that is enslaving the world.

Having the combat taking place in a cyberscape would be a good framing device, for why you are able to keep coming back over and over, without having to need some kind of mystical jargon to justify it. That could be pretty neat, sadly I don't enjoy Souls games at all, so I wouldn't play that one, but I can appreciate the concept. xD

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Apparently Surge 2 is a huge improvement. And it's on sale currently. But I haven't tried the sequel yet. And I spent the only money I could spend on Judgement. But yeah, would love to try it and/or another attempt at sci-fi souls. You could go some proper whacky imaginative places with it too!

 

[CriticalGaming]

Apparently Surge 2 is a huge improvement. And it's on sale currently. But I haven't tried the sequel yet. And I spent the only money I could spend on Judgement. But yeah, would love to try it and/or another attempt at sci-fi souls. You could go some proper whacky imaginative places with it too!

I beat the surge 2 and started NG+, they actually do a cool thing by adding more story to NG+ which i think is an interesting touch. But the problem is the game features repeating bosses to a stupid degree. One boss you fight 5 fucking times. Granted he gets different moves, it is still the same fucking guy 5 fucking times.

 

[happyninja42]

One boss you fight 5 fucking times. Granted he gets different moves, it is still the same fucking guy 5 fucking times.

This is actually an interesting point, especially in a game with a concept of "die and die again, and again, and keep coming back" for the protagonist. Is it really that weird, that the villain, operates under a similar rule to you? That yeah, you killed him, but he came back for more...just like you are doing with each death? Seems thematically fairly appropriate for a Souls-like, to have the idea of death being impermanent for everyone.

Also, is it really important to have an actual different person for bosses? You said yourself that each iteration had new moves, which fundamentally changes the combat. Does it make any real difference, or improvement, if the Boss #2 is Steve McSteveson, instead of Marty McMartface for the second time?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I beat the surge 2 and started NG+, they actually do a cool thing by adding more story to NG+ which i think is an interesting touch. But the problem is the game features repeating bosses to a stupid degree. One boss you fight 5 fucking times. Granted he gets different moves, it is still the same fucking guy 5 fucking times.

Aw that's unfortunate. Didn't they have a recurring boss in the first game? Maybe they think it's an attempt at building "rivalry" like Ridley in metroid or something. But yeah, boss variety is appreciated, the resident evil games are annoying when they do that trick. The only thing with Fromsoft is I'm not sure how comfortable they would be exploring sci-fi themes much. They have the Armoured Core games though, so that may be enough of a spangly robot foot in the door.

 

[CriticalGaming]

This is actually an interesting point, especially in a game with a concept of "die and die again, and again, and keep coming back" for the protagonist. Is it really that weird, that the villain, operates under a similar rule to you? That yeah, you killed him, but he came back for more...just like you are doing with each death? Seems thematically fairly appropriate for a Souls-like, to have the idea of death being impermanent for everyone.

Also, is it really important to have an actual different person for bosses? You said yourself that each iteration had new moves, which fundamentally changes the combat. Does it make any real difference, or improvement, if the Boss #2 is Steve McSteveson, instead of Marty McMartface for the second time?

This is a valid point, but ultimately the player can get fatigued fighting the same shit over and over again. A lot of people gave Nioh shit for having bosses pop up as regular assholes, and the back end of Dark Souls just bombarded you with Taurus and Capra demons and nobody liked thatshit.

Sure differently moves makes a different boss and everything else is just a visual skin. However players get bored fighting the same thing over and over again, and even if the moves are slightly different, the same enemy model makes later versions of the boss easier and easier because there is only so many ways a certain model can move and you just learn it. If the boss had a different character model but the same attacks, he would have been harder.

And the Surge 2 doesn't just repeat 1 boss. It does this for THREE different bosses that get repeated. There are 10 fights that are just reused bosses. And the game only has like 18 total bosses. So the repitition wears thin really quickly.

Aw that's unfortunate. Didn't they have a recurring boss in the first game? Maybe they think it's an attempt at building "rivalry" like Ridley in metroid or something. But yeah, boss variety is appreciated, the resident evil games are annoying when they do that trick. The only thing with Fromsoft is I'm not sure how comfortable they would be exploring sci-fi themes much. They have the Armoured Core games though, so that may be enough of a spangly robot foot in the door.

Actually i just played through the original Surge this weekend, that game doesn't repeat bosses, but it only has like 5 bosses in total so.....whatever. The surge 1 is a terrible terrible game. Do not play it.

 

[Gergar12]

Star Citizen, but in Star Wars.

 

[Dalisclock]

I would love to see a real Souls game done in a Sci-fi setting.

Deck 13 had tried with The Surge games, but anyone who has played those game can tell you that DEck 13 really tries, but they are not very good at it. They don't understand the difference between tough but fair and you fucking die now difficulty.


So i would love FromSoft to actually do a real Souls-like in a crazy cyberpunk setting, maybe do a crazy Matrix style thing where you're hub is you in the "Real" world, and your going into the computers to purge them of corruption that is enslaving the world.

I feel like that would be fucking fantastic. But maybe that's just me.

Not the same thing, but Hellpoint is apparently Souls on a creepy Space station and it just came out.

The reviews I've seen so far are basically "It's okay" and doesn't do much to stand out from every other souls-like.

Star Citizen, but in Star Wars.

Is that still in the 9th level of development hell or did they finally admit it's never coming out?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well for a while I was into the idea of a proper Cowboy Bebop game, PS2 beat-em-up notwithstanding (if made for an ok Cowboy Bebop episode, overall). I always fantasized about an open world/galaxy/universe with the versatility of an Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky, but obviously with more emphasis in combat and a hardline food/fuel/money management system. In NMS you can break the economy too quickly and too easily by mining endless resources. Something based on Cowboy Bebop, which at the end of the day was about making ends meet, should make you work hard for your keep and throw in some kind of tactical tradeoff system, Papers Please style. You can't win 'em all space cowboy.

 

[BrawlMan]

Well for a while I was into the idea of a proper Cowboy Bebop game, PS2 beat-em-up notwithstanding (if made for an ok Cowboy Bebop episode, overall). I always fantasized about an open world/galaxy/universe with the versatility of an Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky, but obviously with more emphasis in combat and a hardline food/fuel/money management system. In NMS you can break the economy too quickly and too easily by mining endless resources. Something based on Cowboy Bebop, which at the end of the day was about making ends meet, should make you work hard for your keep and throw in some kind of tactical tradeoff system, Papers Please style. You can't win 'em all space cowboy.

Same.

Speaking of anime games, I would like game adaption of properties not just from Shounen Jump. A Battle Angel game in the style of Devil May Cry and Bayonetta. A Vampire Hunter D game that is a 3D Metroidvania style with its Gothic/Apocalyptic atmosphere. A Ghost in the Shell game that is a mix between a 3rd person shooter and brawler similar to Oni, but with way better combat. Not some shitty F2P shooter that is a GitS in name only and not much else. An ideal GitS for me would be where you can play as either Motoko or Bato. If not that, a gameplay element for most of Section 9. A mix and match of action and stealth. An arcade Redline racing game in the style of Burnout, Split/Second, Need for Speed, and F-Zero/Fast RMX. A GTA style Black Lagoon game. Anime games can do so much more than constansty regergatating the same generic QTE action game fest, arena fighter, or tournament fighter fest we've all seen a million billion times at this point.

 

[Dalisclock]

A Vampire Hunter D game that is a 3D Metroidvania style with its Gothic/Apocalyptic atmosphere.

That isn't Bloodborne, I take it? I'm not trying to be an asshole either.

I'll admit, I only know the series from the two films and not the manga, but BB feels like it hits the tropes pretty well. I'm hard pressed to see where a licsensed VH: D game would pull it off better.

 

[BrawlMan]

That isn't Bloodborne, I take it? I'm not trying to be an asshole either.

I meant more so similar to the Castlevania: Lords of Shadow games, Darksiders, Blood Omen, and Soul Reaver. Not exactly, but similar in structure.

I'll admit, I only know the series from the two films and not the manga, but BB feels like it hits the tropes pretty well. I'm hard pressed to see where a licsensed VH: D game would pull it off better.

It is not a case of "better", but just pulling it off good or well. I don't want D to be Bloodborne or Souls style either. Also, the D Series are light novels, and not manga. I don't blame you for making that mistake. I've seen both movies too, but you can usually skip the first one and not miss much.

 

[Dalisclock]

I meant more so similar to the Castlevania: Lords of Shadow games, Darksiders, Blood Omen, and Soul Reaver. Not exactly, but similar in structure.

It is not a case of "better", but just pulling it off good or well. I don't want D to be Bloodborne or Souls style either. Also, the D Series are light novels, and not manga. I don't blame you for making that mistake. I've seen both movies too, but you can usually skip the first one and not miss much.

Fair enough.

I personally liked the 2nd one more then the first one as well. It's hard to get past the production values on the first movie.

 

[wings012]

When playing multiplayer games, especially with random people(and in my case, certain friends of mine) - cooperation can be a big bloody issue. I always wondered if there could be mechanics that explore this issue. We can't fix people being total turds, but can there be mechanics that mitigate it to some extent?

So I always fancied the idea that you could see what your team could see. Which isn't practical, but what if it's just simple things. Like any enemies within LoS of your teammates are highlighted to you as if Overwatch's Widowmaker's ult was on or something. It'd definitely make indirect fire weapons more interesting, and any wall piercing weapons more interesting. Granted it'd probably be frustrating to be on the receiving end.

There are games that allow you to mark enemies and have easy ping systems, but what if there was a more passive way to simply have it happen? That's just what I'm wondering.

Probably not a problem that needs solving on a whole, but could make for a neat mechanic.

 

[Kyrian007]

Well, we're actually getting something I wanted for a long time... and already got it on a small scale. I always wanted a Deadlands based video game. A couple of years ago we got Hard West, which was a hex/iso strategy version that really was nice. And now Weird West is going to have a go at it. Still, I'd like an officially licensed version. And if not iso or hex... maybe something like Fallout or The Outer Worlds. Still, Hard West had Gatling pistols... and Gatling Gatling pistols (that's a rotating array of Gatling pistols) so maybe I'm being a little selfish.

 

[happyninja42]

When playing multiplayer games, especially with random people(and in my case, certain friends of mine) - cooperation can be a big bloody issue. I always wondered if there could be mechanics that explore this issue. We can't fix people being total turds, but can there be mechanics that mitigate it to some extent?

I've personally noticed, over the years, that the turdish behavior seems to be lessened, when you are playing multiplayer games where it's players vs AI, like Left 4 Dead, or Payday. Since the entire game is built around you guys working together, it becomes less toxic of a scene. Not entirely of course, there's always douchebags, but definitely WAY less than some game where it's humans vs humans, and butthurtness comes into play.

So I always fancied the idea that you could see what your team could see. Which isn't practical, but what if it's just simple things. Like any enemies within LoS of your teammates are highlighted to you as if Overwatch's Widowmaker's ult was on or something. It'd definitely make indirect fire weapons more interesting, and any wall piercing weapons more interesting. Granted it'd probably be frustrating to be on the receiving end.

There are games that allow you to mark enemies and have easy ping systems, but what if there was a more passive way to simply have it happen? That's just what I'm wondering.

Probably not a problem that needs solving on a whole, but could make for a neat mechanic.

I think the key thing is to have different classes, and to give them all a couple of abilities that are designed to help the rest of the team. Often, the role of "support" is built around one class, which is fine really, to have one type that specializes in boosting everyone else. But I think it would help foster cooperation, if EVERYONE had at least like, 2 abilities, that directly helped everyone BUT them. This way, everyone has incentive to help the rest of the team, and to stick together so they can all benefit.

I also think that rewarding good behavior, instead of punishing bad, would help a lot too. More carrot instead of stick. I remember playing LoL many years ago, and I was never anything but a casual player. But I always thought that the system they had at one point, of where the people you played with, could give you marks for positive play, based on multiple metrics, was really good. And I think a game would probably benefit from actually giving people bonuses for that behavior. Like, if you have a microtransaction currency, reward people with a positive enough ranking for the month, with free currency, or maybe a 25% discount on their next 3 purchases from the Store or something. I remember mentioning it to people in the game chat once, and they were like "no way, people will vote you down just to be toxic assholes." And I just don't think there's enough people to do that to any appreciable degree. I mean even with just their system as it was, with no reward, people would still vote you down sometimes just to be assholes, but that was a VERY small percentage of people. So small in fact, that it made no impact on my overall "good player/fun guy" ranking.

Any truly bad behavior can always still be reported directly, where the moderators can actually review the logs or whatever. But have the players reward each other for actually playing nice. I think there's a lot more people who play games that like to be helpful than not. We just only remember the negative encounters due to confirmation bias.

In the same vein of rewarding positive play, in the above mentioned system where each class has multiple group abilities, if you are using some kind of EXP/leveling system for the classes, provide an XP boost if their allies accomplish a lot while under the effects of your buff. For example, if the damage dealer, while boosted by your health regen ability, just carves a path through a horde of enemies (because you accurately timed your usage of the ability during a dangerous big fight), YOU get extra EXP at the end of the match. Or if the tank class, is really on point for using their taunt ability to pull enemies off the rest of the party quickly, so they get an EXP boost.

I'd love to see shit like that, because frankly I prefer playing support classes in just about any group game. So I'd love to see games built with more of a cooperative concept in mind.

I remember, back when I played Payday 2 a LOT, it was always so much fun, when you'd get 4 people together, and they were all built in a way that was very synergistic to everyone else. And you just have this really fun match, where everyone is backing each other up, with just player skill, and class talents. It made things way more fun. I'd love to see games that did that more.

 

[wings012]

I think the key thing is to have different classes, and to give them all a couple of abilities that are designed to help the rest of the team. Often, the role of "support" is built around one class, which is fine really, to have one type that specializes in boosting everyone else. But I think it would help foster cooperation, if EVERYONE had at least like, 2 abilities, that directly helped everyone BUT them. This way, everyone has incentive to help the rest of the team, and to stick together so they can all benefit.

I always questioned the role of a support class. Granted my experience with Overwatch is a huge influence on my thoughts, and that place is a bit of a shithole - especially just quickmatching and pugging. But it does feel like there isn't always enough players that want to play support relative to the amount of players that are on. So you get into shitty matches, all the players on a team keep screaming for someone to switch to support and yet nobody is willing to. Sometimes I feel the impact of a healing/support class can be too overwhelming, and when there aren't enough players that want to play that class it can lead to a mess. It'd be fine if not running a support was also a viable strategy but in most games I feel it never truly is.

The presence of a 'cooperative' class also feels somewhat forced to me. Is the player actually being cooperative or is it just because that's the only thing the class can even do? It also can paint the offensive classes in a negative light. The flanker or sniper classes might be keeping enemies off your backs but you'll never notice it and they are the first to get bitched at once the game takes a bad turn.

I do admit that I actually dislike class based games so I am biased here. I value the ability to flex into various roles. I still remember when I used to play UT2k4 Onslaught, and I enjoyed kinda just surveying the battlefield and filling roles as required. Enemy armour was being a problem, so I spawned into the spot with the high ground AVRiL and took on the role of taking care of that. I tend to prefer a more organic sort of cooperation. Like I see a random teammate in Halo crouched around a corner with an energy sword like a total bum, and I just sorta willingly go around the corner and make potshots to lure some action over into the ambush.

I think a huge part of it is communication and situational awareness. I'm personally an anti-social bum and will rarely engage in direct communication with randoms. And I don't always have my friends with me cause we don't all play the same games. Sometimes cooperation doesn't happen cause nobody knows what is going on. I always like mechanics like easy pings and whatnot. Usually people see the ping, and more or less get the hint. I thought the Apex Legends pinging system was pretty great. I also have a moron friend I can't get rid of(and won't) whom I play games with a lot, and he's just god awful when it comes to situational awareness and requires constant instruction if you want him to cooperate and just doesn't notice basic shit like the minimap in a MOBA. Sometimes I wonder if I can outsource some of that effort to the game itself. If my teammates could just somehow innately receive some of my visual information in a way that is noticeable but not overwhelming, I wonder if it would lead to more jolly cooperation?

In PvE games, it depends on how the game is designed and tuned is I suppose. But there are times where cooperation can be rather forced - to the point the team needs to run like a machine. At this point are the players even playing the game and cooperating? Or are they just following a list of instructions. Or functioning as the extension of the 'lead' player calling the shots, in which he's the one playing the game really. Not that it is always a bad thing I suppose? You mentioned Payday 2 and I did a mission with some randoms. It was Framing Frame, but those randoms knew what they were doing, initiated communication and we did the whole mission without being detected and I got the achievement I Wasn't Even There. Granted I probably wasn't really doing shit beyond following instructions... but it felt good. Though if the mission went south, we could've still completed it through other means. Where I have a problem is when there's no recourse when shit goes south - which is my issue with Destiny 2 Raids. Well, at least just Leviathan since I stopped playing after that. I found it just flat out unpleasant and when I looked up guides, it was pretty much everyone follows exact directions or else!!

I should probably give Journey a go at some point, I hear a lot of people rave about it and how it sorta creates a natural cooperative experience and whatnot.

 

[happyninja42]

The presence of a 'cooperative' class also feels somewhat forced to me. Is the player actually being cooperative or is it just because that's the only thing the class can even do? It also can paint the offensive classes in a negative light. The flanker or sniper classes might be keeping enemies off your backs but you'll never notice it and they are the first to get bitched at once the game takes a bad turn.

Well, having played support classes in multiplayer games of all kinds for like 20+ years, I can say that for me at least, I'm being cooperative. It's probably a personality thing, some people just don't have the temperament to play the class and enjoy it. But I mean, every class can only do the things it can do. So I don't really even understand your first question. If you don't LIKE playing support, odds are good you aren't going to. As to you thinking it's "forced" ...*shrugs* I can't change your mind on that. All I can say is that I get great personal satisfaction out of keeping a team alive during a hard dungeon run, or a pvp match. Only a complete idiot is oblivious to the fact that the healer/support did a lot to keep their dps ass alive. As to the sniper class getting no credit, well I mean all those games give us a kill count that is displayed to the entire match, assuming we're talking about pvp arena style games. So again, people who know how the game works, will be able to tell that there is a distinct lack of enemies without bullet holes in their heads, because the sniper is on point.

I think a huge part of it is communication and situational awareness. I'm personally an anti-social bum and will rarely engage in direct communication with randoms.

Then maybe you shouldn't play so many games that require commuincation and coordination and then be bothered by the lack of it ? I mean communication is a 2way street.

In PvE games, it depends on how the game is designed and tuned is I suppose. But there are times where cooperation can be rather forced - to the point the team needs to run like a machine. At this point are the players even playing the game and cooperating? Or are they just following a list of instructions. Or functioning as the extension of the 'lead' player calling the shots, in which he's the one playing the game really.

*blinks* I....I just...I don't know how to respond to this. You talk like there is some autopilot function or something, where the group of players aren't still required to know their role, be aware of the changing situation based on the encounter, and reacting accordingly. I mean, what do you think cooperation and teamwork is, if not everyone working towards a common goal, utilizing their unique skills in conjunction with their allies? I've lost count of the number of times I've wiped in a raid because the tank didn't pay attention to agro, and didn't peel mobs off me the healer, or the dps. Or a dps who was too poke crazy and didn't wait for a tank to build enough threat before going to town on a kidney. Or when I played a tank, when a healer isn't paying attention to damage, or when a clothy pulls agro and then runs AWAY from me the tank, making it impossible for me to taunt it off them. Group runs can wipe in so many ways if everyone isn't paying attention and doing what they are built to do.

The fact that someone is coordinating the groups focus, is just what a leader does. That's the whole point of someone being a leader, they lead. They point and say "go smash that" or whatever.