I get the feeling no one would talk the 'normal things' option.TheIceface said:
On topic, a game which built melee combat into multiplayer as something more than a reaction and timing test (Halo) or button mashing (Gears of War 2) would be nice.
Gaming Concepts That Would Revolutionize the Industry or at Least Make for a Good Game
- Thread starter Shadow Tyrant
- Start date
On topic, a game which built melee combat into multiplayer as something more than a reaction and timing test (Halo) or button mashing (Gears of War 2) would be nice.
I've thought of that before. It does, however, rely on the squad members actually doing something a stranger on the internet tells them to do. You could only do this in a closed, organized league.Ultrajoe said:
Ok Ok. I got one, a game that had most 70% of its development time researching for a good gameplay formula before starting to work on the art aspects of the game (the fillers).
I feel that every game these days is: choose a pre-existing genre, brainstorm gimmicks and minor change to the genre's gameplay. Churn out the art and storyline aspects of the game. What you end up with is these large numbers of cliched FPS titles.
We need more games like Mount & Blade!
I feel that every game these days is: choose a pre-existing genre, brainstorm gimmicks and minor change to the genre's gameplay. Churn out the art and storyline aspects of the game. What you end up with is these large numbers of cliched FPS titles.
We need more games like Mount & Blade!
I have always wanted to be a grunt worker in a RTS game. Try and sway the battle in my favour.Ultrajoe said:
I would like to see a game that doesn't stop and wait for the player. It plays like a movie; to someone not holding the controller, it LOOKS like a movie. The key concept here is that YOU choose your own level of involvement.
The character is sitting at his desk, delivering an introductory voice over. No matter what you do, he will deliver this voice over in about five seconds time and get up. While he is talking, however, you can reach out and grab any of the objects on his desk. Maybe his posture changes, maybe he adds an extra word or two on. But the game doesn't ever stop and rely on the player to continue, and no matter your range of action, it all occurs within the scope of what could reasonably occur within that scene.
Here's another example. Your character is tied up, the bad guy is approaching. We all know, one way or another, the good guy is going to win here, so the path there is variable. Maybe the player does nothing; the bad guy gets close, and a third party swoops in to the rescue. Or maybe the player taps the thumbstick, and just as the character feels with his hand a shard of glass to cut the ropes, the player sees this in response to his movement (fourth wall kinda moment :O)
So the three important concepts here are:
1. The world does not revolve around the player. The player exists WITHIN the world.
2. You choose your level of involvement.
3. NO ONSCREEN ANYTHING. No prompts, no flashing A buttons, no HUD, nothing that is immersion/cinema-breaking.
Think all the best parts of Indigo Prophecy fleshed out into a full game design philosophy and minus the suck.
The character is sitting at his desk, delivering an introductory voice over. No matter what you do, he will deliver this voice over in about five seconds time and get up. While he is talking, however, you can reach out and grab any of the objects on his desk. Maybe his posture changes, maybe he adds an extra word or two on. But the game doesn't ever stop and rely on the player to continue, and no matter your range of action, it all occurs within the scope of what could reasonably occur within that scene.
Here's another example. Your character is tied up, the bad guy is approaching. We all know, one way or another, the good guy is going to win here, so the path there is variable. Maybe the player does nothing; the bad guy gets close, and a third party swoops in to the rescue. Or maybe the player taps the thumbstick, and just as the character feels with his hand a shard of glass to cut the ropes, the player sees this in response to his movement (fourth wall kinda moment :O)
So the three important concepts here are:
1. The world does not revolve around the player. The player exists WITHIN the world.
2. You choose your level of involvement.
3. NO ONSCREEN ANYTHING. No prompts, no flashing A buttons, no HUD, nothing that is immersion/cinema-breaking.
Think all the best parts of Indigo Prophecy fleshed out into a full game design philosophy and minus the suck.
Also, it's not quite revolutionary, but I think there are some archaic concepts that need to just be done away with. Game over, for one; games like devil may cry baffle me that they still have this. Any dead end in a game is immersion breaking; it's like the developer telling you 'NO! You didn't play right! Now go back and do it right this time, like you're supposed to!' Dead ends = laziness on the part of the developer.
Life bars, on-screen prompts, and non-interactive cutscenes are pretty much a given, but they still manage to cling on somehow.
Life bars, on-screen prompts, and non-interactive cutscenes are pretty much a given, but they still manage to cling on somehow.
Doesn't it just seem like one of those games someone should have done by now? It's not that hard to figure out :| Make the story/world/events first, then build the game around it, rather than making an engine and running players through a fucking gauntlet. Does no one understand the concept of immersion D:
I'd like to see someone create a living breathing world for an MMO, cities full of people (ala Assassin's Creed) which live and thrive seperate from the players. People actually do realistic jobs through the cities, food supplies rise and fall with the seasons, trade wagons go from town to town, so essentially that world could keep going forever self-sustained.
Then add your threats, creature nests and locations through the wild, caves full of monsters, etc, basically create a complex world.
Then add your players, who basically enter as trainees in the local military. They then choose promotion or service, basically entering the world of either more RTS-based civilisation management, political struggles via server-wide democracy, OR the combat side as a mercenary, soldier or even a criminal, playing a fighter/sorcerer in the conflicts of the world.
The politicians will get limited combat skills, as they do not proceed to combat to train as a fighter, however these politicians get promoted to Barons, Lords, Captains, etc, and have control of villages, towns, cities or eventually whole regions. They also get the unique ability to give other players quests (some sort of Quest Editor).
The outcome of these quests affects not just the individual combatant a reward, but increases the NPC town/city's happiness. All players benefit from happier towns, so they can decide to 'vote' for that particular player, giving him more power and control over a larger region. These politician players have varying amounts of control over the cost of weapons, gear, food, and all that sort of thing. Their challenge is to create a balanced and working society, and their gameplay is largely strategic, manipulating REAL players to gain power.
The combat side of the game plays like a traditional MMO, finding work defending a town, being hired as a mercenary or bounty hunter, or even taking to the dark side and becoming a criminal, holding up trade wagons, assassinating people or even siding with some evil NPC factions rather than the masses of towns and cities.
The combatants can obviously be hired by the politicians to carry out their dirty work. These players kill more monsters and other players than the politicians, and their main goal is money and possibly notoriety. They can fight in the arena, bribe politicians, go to war at a politician's bidding, align themselves with NPC factions, and slay monsters for fame and fortune.
The idea is that the players themselves make the storylines, and that actions taken within the world are entirely driven by player imagination.
I understand the complexities involved in creating such an idea, and the servers would have to be able to handle huge amounts of information and connections to make it work, but we advance technologically almost on a day-to-day basis, so this isn't inconceivable. I think MMOs should be divided into those that like the combat-based, stat-upgrading side, and those who prefer the RPG civilisation-management side.
Something along those lines.
Then add your threats, creature nests and locations through the wild, caves full of monsters, etc, basically create a complex world.
Then add your players, who basically enter as trainees in the local military. They then choose promotion or service, basically entering the world of either more RTS-based civilisation management, political struggles via server-wide democracy, OR the combat side as a mercenary, soldier or even a criminal, playing a fighter/sorcerer in the conflicts of the world.
The politicians will get limited combat skills, as they do not proceed to combat to train as a fighter, however these politicians get promoted to Barons, Lords, Captains, etc, and have control of villages, towns, cities or eventually whole regions. They also get the unique ability to give other players quests (some sort of Quest Editor).
The outcome of these quests affects not just the individual combatant a reward, but increases the NPC town/city's happiness. All players benefit from happier towns, so they can decide to 'vote' for that particular player, giving him more power and control over a larger region. These politician players have varying amounts of control over the cost of weapons, gear, food, and all that sort of thing. Their challenge is to create a balanced and working society, and their gameplay is largely strategic, manipulating REAL players to gain power.
The combat side of the game plays like a traditional MMO, finding work defending a town, being hired as a mercenary or bounty hunter, or even taking to the dark side and becoming a criminal, holding up trade wagons, assassinating people or even siding with some evil NPC factions rather than the masses of towns and cities.
The combatants can obviously be hired by the politicians to carry out their dirty work. These players kill more monsters and other players than the politicians, and their main goal is money and possibly notoriety. They can fight in the arena, bribe politicians, go to war at a politician's bidding, align themselves with NPC factions, and slay monsters for fame and fortune.
The idea is that the players themselves make the storylines, and that actions taken within the world are entirely driven by player imagination.
I understand the complexities involved in creating such an idea, and the servers would have to be able to handle huge amounts of information and connections to make it work, but we advance technologically almost on a day-to-day basis, so this isn't inconceivable. I think MMOs should be divided into those that like the combat-based, stat-upgrading side, and those who prefer the RPG civilisation-management side.
Something along those lines.
@ jinjiro
imagine if an mmo like that worked in massive global dynamic events that weren't contingent on players activating some quest to start it. Imagine, one day you log on WoW and find out your country is at war, and you've been drafted. You can go fight players from other nations (possibly even your friends) or run and join the rebels in the hills. Depending on how the battles go (each battle would add .0000001 to a side winning the war) a different outcome results in the world story.
Imagine how epic it would be if you were the guy within a nation helping the rebel state get information after a war. Imagine if there were actually pivotal battles within the game's history, so you could say something like 'I was in the first mage batallion at the ivory tower' and other players could be awed by this, and not some arbitrary number or piece of equipment.
We need more democratic game making -__- The average gamer has more creativity in his pinky than a whole team of devs.
imagine if an mmo like that worked in massive global dynamic events that weren't contingent on players activating some quest to start it. Imagine, one day you log on WoW and find out your country is at war, and you've been drafted. You can go fight players from other nations (possibly even your friends) or run and join the rebels in the hills. Depending on how the battles go (each battle would add .0000001 to a side winning the war) a different outcome results in the world story.
Imagine how epic it would be if you were the guy within a nation helping the rebel state get information after a war. Imagine if there were actually pivotal battles within the game's history, so you could say something like 'I was in the first mage batallion at the ivory tower' and other players could be awed by this, and not some arbitrary number or piece of equipment.
We need more democratic game making -__- The average gamer has more creativity in his pinky than a whole team of devs.
He either means he's planning to rip off gears of war, any roguelike or create a huge moneysink/financial failure(how many people would buy another $60 game everytime somebody headshotted them?)Alphavillain said:
I'm not so fond of the overly complicated health meters. Especialy no limb based damage. Far too easy to abuse. After somebody shoots out all your limbs, you just basicly lie there and hope for a stray frag grenade to kill you so that you can respawn. That way the entire game decends into a "who can non-lethaly incapitate the enemy contest"
Something i'd like to see however are destroyable buildings like in CoH in an fps. No more discarded pistols stopping a tank dead in it's tracks(yes crysis i'm looking at you) and especialy no Indestructible Trees of Blocking, flora that is apparently resistant to nuclear weaponry.
Physics! World physics that you can actually interact with and that looks and "feels" somewhat real. Imagine this. Some guy is hiding inside a house. You can Then choose to torch the house, get someone big to pound down the door, etc. Also beeing able to move stuff like rocks or sigeweapons and make basic fortifications and camps from what you find close by.
Other things i'd like to see is playermade inventions, where you can create something completely new. You submit the "blueprint" to a development team, you can call it a patent office if you like. Then if they think the inventions is within reason they make a working bluerpint that you can craft ingame. witch you can the copy and sell if you want to.
Also massive persistent worlds witch are fully interactable. If you find a nice hill somewhere you can build a castle or fortification on it. it would be attackable but depending on how well it was made it could take days to destroy it.
Also i'd like to see more anonymity. Like if you joined a corp/faction/guild it wouldn't be visible to everyone/anyone outside that corp/faction/guild. Would make for some awsome spy/counterspy games. also information could be graded so you would have to make an effort to be able to get access to high grade documents.
Imagine all the above in a mmo the size of the world in a post ww3 setting with people driving around in fully customizable tanks. everything beeing ffa pvp and if your tanks get blown it's gone. Like a combination between eve-online and bf2142 on steroids.
it's a few years into the future but if i could imagine it. i'm sure someone smarter than me could make it.
Other things i'd like to see is playermade inventions, where you can create something completely new. You submit the "blueprint" to a development team, you can call it a patent office if you like. Then if they think the inventions is within reason they make a working bluerpint that you can craft ingame. witch you can the copy and sell if you want to.
Also massive persistent worlds witch are fully interactable. If you find a nice hill somewhere you can build a castle or fortification on it. it would be attackable but depending on how well it was made it could take days to destroy it.
Also i'd like to see more anonymity. Like if you joined a corp/faction/guild it wouldn't be visible to everyone/anyone outside that corp/faction/guild. Would make for some awsome spy/counterspy games. also information could be graded so you would have to make an effort to be able to get access to high grade documents.
Imagine all the above in a mmo the size of the world in a post ww3 setting with people driving around in fully customizable tanks. everything beeing ffa pvp and if your tanks get blown it's gone. Like a combination between eve-online and bf2142 on steroids.
it's a few years into the future but if i could imagine it. i'm sure someone smarter than me could make it.
A music game where you pay £40 for effectively a blank slate - just a disc with no songs on. Then you can pick and choose your own songs to download for it so its' exclusively filled with songs you like. It would be a bit like Rock Band's current system, only you build your own setlist from scratch. You wouldn't even need to sell it in shops - as long as you had peripherals the entire thing could be downloaded.
@teknoarcanist
Completely agree with your response, having player made epic events would feel SO much more satisfying than your average MMO achievement. True immersion means PLAYER made content, not restricted developer content.
This is why I respect what Will Wright and Maxis are doing with Spore, giving us the TOOLS rather than just a finished product.
Hopefully, technology allowing, we'll see something similar to what I described soon.
Completely agree with your response, having player made epic events would feel SO much more satisfying than your average MMO achievement. True immersion means PLAYER made content, not restricted developer content.
This is why I respect what Will Wright and Maxis are doing with Spore, giving us the TOOLS rather than just a finished product.
Hopefully, technology allowing, we'll see something similar to what I described soon.
i always thought a mmorg strategy game would be cool. like it resets every month or year or something. you start of some tribe in the middle of nowhere and you get to pick basic stats on what your tribe is like(aggressive/intellegent/zeolous/loyal/compromising/etc) and some influence on where your start point is (sea/river/forest/desert/plains) though it would still be random. and you would develop basically like civilization and the aim is to be the only one left, or have pax 'whatver your tribe is.'
and as you go through the game you develop your tribes history, name its heroes, decided the traits it hold in highest esteem etc. and these become part of your tribes lore in the next round. your tribe remember the heroes (although their action will become more mythogical) as part of their history, and they honour the same codes as you instilled in the last round and stuff.
and as you go through the game you develop your tribes history, name its heroes, decided the traits it hold in highest esteem etc. and these become part of your tribes lore in the next round. your tribe remember the heroes (although their action will become more mythogical) as part of their history, and they honour the same codes as you instilled in the last round and stuff.
Kudos to Operation Flashpoint - just more proof that if you make a totally original game, people will just say "Meh, its nothing like Halo" and move on.Codgo said:
It does seem like there's this push being made towards user-generated content. I think that's one of the few barriers that has kept gaming (as a whole, not barring specific examples) from being widely considered an artform. It's not accessible to outsiders who wish to create. If you want to draw, pick up a pencil. Your first sketch may suck, but at least you were able to do it. Same goes for painting, writing, and the other creative arts (unless we're considering gaming to be a performance art now lol)
If you want to make a game, on the other hand, you pretty much have to devote yourself to learning this massive arcane witchcraft. Sort of discourages dabbling.
If you want to make a game, on the other hand, you pretty much have to devote yourself to learning this massive arcane witchcraft. Sort of discourages dabbling.
What about Prince of Persia (the Sands of Time trilogy)? Those were heavy on time manipulation, except Warrior Within which doesn't count.Anarchemitis said:
As for revolutionary concepts, one I'd like to knock outta developers' heads is their belief that in order to make a great game, they have to make it a graphic powerhouse. It's stupid, since I stopped caring about graphics ages ago, and in my opinion, the new POP looks much better than Crysis. You don't need bells and whistles, you need gameplay and story.
True, true. You can see with all the machinima being made, and all the game mods that are being developed that it's what we as consumers want, to push into creativity and deeper involvement with our gaming experience. What needs to come next is games that bridge the gap between passive consumerism and creative depth, and I hope games like Spore are the next step in gaming culture and development.teknoarcanist said: