How about a game with...

[Fanta Grape]

How about a game with a single particular mechanic which I think is brilliant. You LOSE weapons.

"That's a stupid idea," the touche (troll douche. See what I did there? =D) says as he read this post. But is it really that bad?

As I was playing Fallout 3, I was thinking to myself that my skill never really developed in that game. Only my stats and weapons. Also, the enemies constantly got stronger too. The downfall? It made the learning curve far too flat. So I was wondering how to fix it. I though about how FInal Fantasy VIII (I think it was VIII) tried to fix this problem. And if I remember correctly, it didn't work out too well. A valiant effort though.

So imagine this: It's a third person puzzle/shooter/horror game, not too unlike Silent Hill, but it has far less horror elements and far more supernatural ones (not fantasy). You start off easy wiping out enemies with auto-shotguns, AK-47's and whatever floats your boat. Eventually you get to the first boss who's slightly above your size and you take him out after just a couple of tries. Now as the game develops, you lose your weapons, but the enemies remain at the same level (not to say that the enemies will be the same, but the health and damage remains similar) and the more weapons you lose, the harder it is to kill these monsters. Things you were decimating, centimating and mating out in seconds before are now life threatening. You're up to the final boss, he's a towering giant and you have take him down with just a laser pointer, a pair of scissors and shoes (MacGyver could do it).

Personally, I think it would work well. Now the biggest concern is that people would get bored of the weapons fast? Well, not necessarily true. For starters, you have to master all of the weapons, which is extremely important and will keep you entertained. Secondly, there will be moderate level ups you get for doing certain things in the story to improve how effective something is.

Now I'm not planning to ever make this game, nor can I ever implement it into anything, but hypothetically... Would it work?

 

[manythings]

You see the idea is good on paper but you're not taking into account the idea of progression. You are enfrocing regression. If a game is actively just handicapping me then it would just feel like a continuous string of arbitrary dickmoves so they wouldn't have to actually improve the games difficulty they would just make me less and less able to deal with it.

Not only that your primary audience will be people looking to blast the shit out of zombies but you are steadily alienating them while the people who would like this kind of idea ignored your game because it looks like blasthing the shit out of zombies.

You'll need a better hook to make this work, just taking my stuff will be frustrating.

 

[Meggiepants]

Maybe, but it might get old fast. You usually have to ramp up the difficulty of a game slowly, and I could see the latter half of this proposal getting really difficult, really quickly.

But I'd have to see it in action to know for sure.

 

[Starnerf]

It sounds like a good idea for a challenge mode, but not as the focus of a game. Players like feeling like they get stronger as the game progresses, and removing weapons, while it could work in context, doesn't seem like something a lot of people would enjoy.

 

[Retardinator]

Snip

You're not the only one who had that idea [http://www.planetphillip.com/posts/fewer-weapons-not-more/]. Except in his draft there's this little tidbit:

The player themselves would make the choice of which weapon to lose rather than the game.

 

[The Real Sandman]

It wasn't just the lack of weapons that made the first couple Silent Hill games scary, for you can run away from most enemies and seldom ever had to fight. It was the atmosphere and pacing that provived for the scare elements. Building an inescapable town of self-created nightmares that sickingly taunt you into the realization that you are truly alone and helpless. THAT is why those games are scary (slimy leg monsters aside).

 

[tGx Angel]

perhaps a horror game spanning decades where you feel the gradual decline in your character through aging would be a better example of what you're talking about here. begin the game as a capable 20-something and gradually watch the character suffer the cripling effects of old age, while the world remains the same, you become more and more powerless to resist it.

or something like that.

- Ang

 

[Erana]

And I've had the same idea, but with just general ability. And the strategy coming from the stats you loose. It would be like aging. Which no one seems to pay any attention to in video games.

 

[Starnerf]

And I've had the same idea, but with just general ability. And the strategy coming from the stats you loose. It would be like aging. Which no one seems to pay any attention to in video games.

That's probably because most games take place within a single year. But a generational game would be an interesting concept, I think.

 

[octafish]

You mean like Condemned and System Shock 2? In Condemned ammo was very scarce on the ground so once you had no ammo it was time drop the gun and improvise a weapon. System Shock 2 had a brutal weapon degeneration system that can't really be compared to Fallout 3, coupled with limited ammo guns could not be relied upon. Now the player did find more powerful weapons later in the game but they still had the very limited ammo.

 

[godofallu]

I doubt it would. People who would enjoy the first part of the game, those who are looking for a empowerment trip, would hate the latter part as their character is getting weaker those who are looking for a good scare game where you can't fight back would not like the beginning.
Besides, why would you lose your weapons?
Most games have a segment where you lose your weapons for a little while and its always annoying. So what reason would you give for constantly taking away the characters stuff?

QFT. This idea is bad, and anyone can see that.