Don Alejandro, sounds fun. Realistic lock picking, none of that Tom Clancy fakeness. that would be enjoyable, as long as you really learn about the mechanics of the locks and other devices you bypass/hack/destroy.
If You Could Make Your Own Game...
- Thread starter [HD]Rob Inglis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not going to write a book about it, but I always imagened a game that you lived through the life of Eric Harris and see all the events that caused him to go on a killing rampage.
Call it sickening; I say it'd make an intresting game.
Call it sickening; I say it'd make an intresting game.
Ive always wanted a game that blended FPS, third person action and RTS into a competitive multiplayer game. It could be set as battles taking place for a variety of reasons, if it was a very open content game this could vary from fighting Zombies, to Humans versus Aliens and Allies versus Soviets, any cliche you can imagine and even ones you can't. The FPS could be played exactly like any FPS, the third person would be for those who want to take the fight up close with melee and who want to traverse landscapes like a ninja, the RTS would be top down over the battlefield and would be the one hiring the other two types to fight for him and dropping AI platoons and vehicles, as well as vehicles and supplies for his forces.
I don't know if RPG elements should be in there because every game and his dog that covers multiple genres seems to include RPG elements, although leaving them out because its overused might be a bit stupid if they work well. If they were included there would be a very low level cap and it would focus on the customization of your character, I'd prefer alot of gear across each level than every player wearing the same clothes according to level.
The biggest problem with this would be balancing issues, it'd take alot of testing for each game type to be equally useful I think and until that'd been done the game would be pretty much unplayable.
With the variety this kind of game would offer and the huge potential audience, if pulled off it could be as big as The Sims, or the up and coming Spore... or at least thats what I believe
, what do you guys think?
I don't know if RPG elements should be in there because every game and his dog that covers multiple genres seems to include RPG elements, although leaving them out because its overused might be a bit stupid if they work well. If they were included there would be a very low level cap and it would focus on the customization of your character, I'd prefer alot of gear across each level than every player wearing the same clothes according to level.
The biggest problem with this would be balancing issues, it'd take alot of testing for each game type to be equally useful I think and until that'd been done the game would be pretty much unplayable.
With the variety this kind of game would offer and the huge potential audience, if pulled off it could be as big as The Sims, or the up and coming Spore... or at least thats what I believe
, what do you guys think?Alright, I have two ideas, but since I'm a lazy bastard I'll just put down one.
It would take place in a stylized medieval-era place, where all the major civs of the time would be close together. There wouldn't be magic or any sort of fantasy.
This would be sword-oriented, but with a twist (I got the idea from some cruddy free online game with a cool concept): instead of just clicking to attack, your mouse movements control the sword directly. Moving it to the side or up-and-down would cause the sword to react accordingly, making realistic sword battles. Holding the right mouse key would make it defensive, meaning you have to move it to intercept attacks (with a shield if you have one), while holding the left key would be attacks. It would also have realistic dismemberment with attacks. This is a feature that would be necessary for something cool I have planned: Unscripted rivals. Say you fight a guy and take out his eye, but don't finish the job. He might come looking for you later with an eyepatch. Same with removed limbs and the like. Different weapons would be available. The one-on-one fights (featuring full sword control)would be in first-person, while multi-enemy conflicts would be third-person with altered controls (cllick on which part of the enemy you want to attack, hold the mouse for different periods of time for different power), since it would be all but impossible to work the direct control with multiple enemies. The camera is locked on your opponent in the one-on-ones, making sure that you remain facing him while freeing up the mouse for attacks. There would be full multiplayer sword battles. I'd try to make it open-ended and give real moral choices. I'd call it...Song of Steel.
It would take place in a stylized medieval-era place, where all the major civs of the time would be close together. There wouldn't be magic or any sort of fantasy.
This would be sword-oriented, but with a twist (I got the idea from some cruddy free online game with a cool concept): instead of just clicking to attack, your mouse movements control the sword directly. Moving it to the side or up-and-down would cause the sword to react accordingly, making realistic sword battles. Holding the right mouse key would make it defensive, meaning you have to move it to intercept attacks (with a shield if you have one), while holding the left key would be attacks. It would also have realistic dismemberment with attacks. This is a feature that would be necessary for something cool I have planned: Unscripted rivals. Say you fight a guy and take out his eye, but don't finish the job. He might come looking for you later with an eyepatch. Same with removed limbs and the like. Different weapons would be available. The one-on-one fights (featuring full sword control)would be in first-person, while multi-enemy conflicts would be third-person with altered controls (cllick on which part of the enemy you want to attack, hold the mouse for different periods of time for different power), since it would be all but impossible to work the direct control with multiple enemies. The camera is locked on your opponent in the one-on-ones, making sure that you remain facing him while freeing up the mouse for attacks. There would be full multiplayer sword battles. I'd try to make it open-ended and give real moral choices. I'd call it...Song of Steel.
Sounds cool. Reminds me of a HL mod, Natural Selection and there was another game that's freeware right now. It has an RTS mode for the 'controller', and FPS for everyone else. You could be a human or a monster, two opposing sides who fight with different weapons/armor/powers combinations.Kuneru said:
sapient, I like the initial idea of being able to infuse weapons with elemental powers, but I'm not sure if a sandbox is the best place for it (the idea, that is). You need to work on your writing too. Instead of making some lame Heroes storyline (not that Heroes isn't lame enough as it is. Ugh...) I'd aim for an even darker and more tragic atmosphere, where you're hated by all and have nowhere to run, really. That'd be an interesting point to start writing from, don't you think? Perhaps the main character turns into a bad guy after a while, deciding to rather take power by force than try to get accepted into society : )
EDIT: Uh, it seems Dark Sector is more or less the game you described, so it seems your wish will come true to some extent ^^
Don Alejandro, I'd buy that game. We seem to think relatively alike when it comes to attention to detail in design. ^^ I'm not sure I think it should be first person though. It's usually easier to judge distances, look around corners etc in third person, something I think would be a fair advantage considering how hard the game already is. Perhaps some unreal gadgets could be added (unreal for a grey thief that is), like heat cameras, sleep gas, smoke bombs etc. And as little weaponry as possible : )
Kuneru, I'm not 100% sure I understand your concept. So the rts-player would hire extra units while the "hero units" would be players? That could work I guess... I just figured it could be interesting with something like a god simulator for something like this. The players make out the soldiers, while the rts players can do things to help allies and hurt enemies, like level terrain, lift them to platues, throw rocks and hint to enemy positions. The fps-players would be able to write to the god, but not the other way around. The fps players would be able to either build or capture points that spread the fps-players influence. Basically it would be gg if the enemy gods influence spread into your base : )
The Sorrow, as with the thieving game I think it would be better in third person because it's easier to judge depth (which would be veeery important in a precise sword-fighting game). Have you played Die by the Sword? If not I think you would really like that game. You control the swords movement by moving the mouse, and holding down the mouse button makes the guy turn the sword around to make parrying easier. Attack damage is based on momentum, so if you are already moving very fast and swing in the same direction you do more damage. it's really dangerous when the enemy does some kind of spinning attack, because sometimes it can kill you in one hit if it takes you in the head (for example). There's dismemberment in the game. Once I lost a leg half-way through ^^ (interestingly it doesn't really make you slower, but if you lose both legs you die). Perhaps medival France or Japan would be best (seeing as how they loved their duelin'). Maybe you could even have a travelling duelist, using katana, epee etc ^^
Heh, we all rock ^^ Great ideas everyone!
EDIT: Uh, it seems Dark Sector is more or less the game you described, so it seems your wish will come true to some extent ^^
Don Alejandro, I'd buy that game. We seem to think relatively alike when it comes to attention to detail in design. ^^ I'm not sure I think it should be first person though. It's usually easier to judge distances, look around corners etc in third person, something I think would be a fair advantage considering how hard the game already is. Perhaps some unreal gadgets could be added (unreal for a grey thief that is), like heat cameras, sleep gas, smoke bombs etc. And as little weaponry as possible : )
Kuneru, I'm not 100% sure I understand your concept. So the rts-player would hire extra units while the "hero units" would be players? That could work I guess... I just figured it could be interesting with something like a god simulator for something like this. The players make out the soldiers, while the rts players can do things to help allies and hurt enemies, like level terrain, lift them to platues, throw rocks and hint to enemy positions. The fps-players would be able to write to the god, but not the other way around. The fps players would be able to either build or capture points that spread the fps-players influence. Basically it would be gg if the enemy gods influence spread into your base : )
The Sorrow, as with the thieving game I think it would be better in third person because it's easier to judge depth (which would be veeery important in a precise sword-fighting game). Have you played Die by the Sword? If not I think you would really like that game. You control the swords movement by moving the mouse, and holding down the mouse button makes the guy turn the sword around to make parrying easier. Attack damage is based on momentum, so if you are already moving very fast and swing in the same direction you do more damage. it's really dangerous when the enemy does some kind of spinning attack, because sometimes it can kill you in one hit if it takes you in the head (for example). There's dismemberment in the game. Once I lost a leg half-way through ^^ (interestingly it doesn't really make you slower, but if you lose both legs you die). Perhaps medival France or Japan would be best (seeing as how they loved their duelin'). Maybe you could even have a travelling duelist, using katana, epee etc ^^
Heh, we all rock ^^ Great ideas everyone!
I'd make a 'sequel' to a game that doesn't even exist.
I'd just make a JRPG type game where you don't play the cliche spikey haired big-ass sword wielding main character, but you play as just some nameless henchmen guy going after the 'main character'. Pretty much the person you play as is those blue suited Shrina guards from FF7. You get other random henchmen too in your entourage (I says entourage cause it sounds so much cooler than a party.). And the whole game is just you and your entourage of three going around trying to find and take out the main character. For the record, this game isn't supposed to be serious at all.. I mean that by it would be more of a parody of FF type games.
Pretty much every town you go to where you hear the 'main character' (Screw it, I'm calling 'em Ralph.) is you just miss em, but you gotta clean up all the crap that they left behind. Sure, yhey may have killed the seemingly cruel ruler of said town but now that he's dead it's total anarchy in the place.
And at the end you finally meet Ralph and his clearly much less cool party and get into an epic battle with them. And, for lack of better words, you get owned horribly.
I'd just make a JRPG type game where you don't play the cliche spikey haired big-ass sword wielding main character, but you play as just some nameless henchmen guy going after the 'main character'. Pretty much the person you play as is those blue suited Shrina guards from FF7. You get other random henchmen too in your entourage (I says entourage cause it sounds so much cooler than a party.). And the whole game is just you and your entourage of three going around trying to find and take out the main character. For the record, this game isn't supposed to be serious at all.. I mean that by it would be more of a parody of FF type games.
Pretty much every town you go to where you hear the 'main character' (Screw it, I'm calling 'em Ralph.) is you just miss em, but you gotta clean up all the crap that they left behind. Sure, yhey may have killed the seemingly cruel ruler of said town but now that he's dead it's total anarchy in the place.
And at the end you finally meet Ralph and his clearly much less cool party and get into an epic battle with them. And, for lack of better words, you get owned horribly.
Ah, Third Person and First Person would be adjustable options. Probably didn't make that clear enough. Gadgetry would be fun, but I'd probably like to limit it to safecrackers, smoke bombs, and things like that. Sleep gas seems a bit too James Bond-ish, but it would be a fun idea.Dectilon said:
Weaponry, I think it should be as available as the player wants to or is able to buy. But for example, if you were to begin in Britain it would be extremely difficult to find which would impact your playing style. If you could bring a weapon in from elsewhere, it would give you a noted advantage but also make it easier to track you down. A fellow toting around FN-FAL in Britain would probably be immediately on the run as soon as he comes into contact with anyone, and in the States in some areas people do have guns in their homes and a wrong move could mean a ventilated criminal, so weaponry is a handicap and an advantage at the same time. It comes down to the style of the player, and in the long run using a gun is a disadvantage. The most you could do to cover your tracks is to pick up the casing, try to remove the bullet, and see if you can dispose of the body. A handicap indeed, and one that should make it especially hard to 'run and gun' as killing 6 people in one place would merit a huge manhunt, the more people, the worse it turns out.
More so, I'm surprised people are willing to write elaborate and detailed texts about every aspect of their concept. Unless they're writing it in hope of some company actually seeing it and using the idea (like myself), they are just risking themselves to get screwed in the future when someone else copies the idea and gets rich for it.sapient said:
"Ah, Third Person and First Person would be adjustable options. Probably didn't make that clear enough. Gadgetry would be fun, but I'd probably like to limit it to safecrackers, smoke bombs, and things like that. Sleep gas seems a bit too James Bond-ish, but it would be a fun idea."
Yeah, "sleep gas" is James Bond-ish, but ether or chloroform should be as avaliable as guns, and less likely to get you hunted down and killed : )
Yeah, "sleep gas" is James Bond-ish, but ether or chloroform should be as avaliable as guns, and less likely to get you hunted down and killed : )
I had this awesome dream a few nights ago involving Me and my friends running into the wilds from zombies. Indeed, I'd like a game in a Zombified dystopian future where you have to run from the threat more than fight it. Besides, who'd want to risk zombification?
I think any game that involves picking your battles carefully (ex: manhunt)would be a nice change, only with less gore and horror elements. Think 'Red Dawn' but replace the invaders with zombies and replace Patrick Swayze with a pansy.
I think any game that involves picking your battles carefully (ex: manhunt)would be a nice change, only with less gore and horror elements. Think 'Red Dawn' but replace the invaders with zombies and replace Patrick Swayze with a pansy.
I believe Vampire Rain tried something like that. Except that it sucked a big, fat cocksickle.
For my game, I think first-person would add immersion and skill: being able to judge depth could be something experienced duelists could learn. Especially with different weapons of different lengths (maybe even weapons you can forge yourself, controlling type, length, and weight.
For my game, I think first-person would add immersion and skill: being able to judge depth could be something experienced duelists could learn. Especially with different weapons of different lengths (maybe even weapons you can forge yourself, controlling type, length, and weight.
It would be like JFK Reloaded in terms of advanced ballistics and physics, but a lot longer and following a story that has the least amount possible to do with the following:
Mysterious Pasts
Amnesia
Newfound Powers
Black Headcrabs
Gigantic Swords
Indestructible Environments
Dialog- If you can't do it well, get rid of it
The phrases "Killing Spree!", "Open World Gaming", "Respawn", "Camp", and "Next-Gen Graphics"
Multiplayer- If I want to be teabagged by a 12-year old, I'll go back to middle school.
Magic
In short, I'd try to make it as real as possible so that there really were infinite possiblities, instead of the "good choice/bad choice" kind of openness. That way you could keep playing it over and over and enjoying the gameplay instead of BAWWWing over graphics and level design. It would take place in a middlesized town, approx. 80,000 people, and play similar to Grand Theft Auto. You do what you want, and you get consequences. Example:
-Shoot someone in the head
-Blood splatters on a passerby's neck
-Passerby goes home, his/her significant other (if they have one) sees the splatter, thinks that the passerby was cheating on them, and kills them.
-The significant other is convicted of murder and sentenced to death
-A group of people protest the penalty, and a mass of protestors gathers outside the place where the execution is to happen
-A riot is started
-Police fire bean bags into the crowd to dissipate the riot
-You get hit in the head with a bag, knocked out, and trampled to death
tl;dr- Consequences will always occur, but will not always be apparent instantly.
Graphics would be on par with Call of Duty 4 and BioShock
Mysterious Pasts
Amnesia
Newfound Powers
Black Headcrabs
Gigantic Swords
Indestructible Environments
Dialog- If you can't do it well, get rid of it
The phrases "Killing Spree!", "Open World Gaming", "Respawn", "Camp", and "Next-Gen Graphics"
Multiplayer- If I want to be teabagged by a 12-year old, I'll go back to middle school.
Magic
In short, I'd try to make it as real as possible so that there really were infinite possiblities, instead of the "good choice/bad choice" kind of openness. That way you could keep playing it over and over and enjoying the gameplay instead of BAWWWing over graphics and level design. It would take place in a middlesized town, approx. 80,000 people, and play similar to Grand Theft Auto. You do what you want, and you get consequences. Example:
-Shoot someone in the head
-Blood splatters on a passerby's neck
-Passerby goes home, his/her significant other (if they have one) sees the splatter, thinks that the passerby was cheating on them, and kills them.
-The significant other is convicted of murder and sentenced to death
-A group of people protest the penalty, and a mass of protestors gathers outside the place where the execution is to happen
-A riot is started
-Police fire bean bags into the crowd to dissipate the riot
-You get hit in the head with a bag, knocked out, and trampled to death
tl;dr- Consequences will always occur, but will not always be apparent instantly.
Graphics would be on par with Call of Duty 4 and BioShock
The "main character" has to have a really cliche name too, so that you REALLY get the feeling of wanting to kill him.TheThree said:
A Fight Club game. I know one's been made, but it's a fighting game that lacks any variety and missed the point of the book completely. My idea is a sandbox game. You play a character you made at the customization screen who has started going to fight club. As he gets better, he works his way up to Project Mayhem, starting in the Misinformation commitee and eventually ending up in the Arson commitee.
By now, some choice has appeared. The character might start to doubt Tyler Durden, and start helping a CIA team trying to end the destruction. The climactic battle would either be fighting off the agents who are trying to defuse the bomb you've attached to the building's supports, or fighting the space monkeys and rogue cops while you nurby durby dur. There would be two different endings.
The gameplay would consist of fighting game style encounters and freeroaming, GTA-style missions. The fighting game sections would come in during fight club scuffles, while the sandbox part would come in when moving around the city and doing missions for Project Mayhem. Several locations in America should be involved, with the ability to fly between them as needed.
By now, some choice has appeared. The character might start to doubt Tyler Durden, and start helping a CIA team trying to end the destruction. The climactic battle would either be fighting off the agents who are trying to defuse the bomb you've attached to the building's supports, or fighting the space monkeys and rogue cops while you nurby durby dur. There would be two different endings.
The gameplay would consist of fighting game style encounters and freeroaming, GTA-style missions. The fighting game sections would come in during fight club scuffles, while the sandbox part would come in when moving around the city and doing missions for Project Mayhem. Several locations in America should be involved, with the ability to fly between them as needed.
You are a weak demon who accidentally falls into a dimensional rift with his brother and ends up in our world. The brothers are seperated and the main character assumes the other is dead. In the other world he was powerless and was considered too soft, but this world slowly awakens great power in him. He needs it, as Earth constantly tries to reject him, it's important to note that this is set long before men were anything but smart animals, he mainly fights the spirits of the trees and elements. He likes it here and tries to figure out a way to make peace with the spirits. But he is a demon, considered a minion of hell and an enemy of nature. Shortly after his rejection, the fox spirit approaches you and tells you a great evil has been released on the land, and he believes only you can stop it. The fox is now considered an outcast for speaking with you, and joins you on your new quest to slay the evil and gain acceptance in this world. The final boss turns out to be your brother who hates this place and tries to make it more like his home. He gained power by stealing the power of those he killed, trapping their souls within him. You are forced to kill him. You are forever known as a hero and act as a guardian of the wood for eternity.
You'd move fast and be able to jump really high(Think Morrowind with 100 athletics and acrobatics while carrying nothing), and you'd have some powers, like conjuring fire and transforming. You can't be some huge demon, but you get to choose your basic appearance and abilities.
Something like that.... The only prolem is that I don't know how this could NOT end up being like Kameo... I didn't like that game.
You'd move fast and be able to jump really high(Think Morrowind with 100 athletics and acrobatics while carrying nothing), and you'd have some powers, like conjuring fire and transforming. You can't be some huge demon, but you get to choose your basic appearance and abilities.
Something like that.... The only prolem is that I don't know how this could NOT end up being like Kameo... I didn't like that game.
I figure choices are a big thing in games these days, but talking to some friends deciding what course to take next year I realised to much choice scares people. Just a thought.
I'd like more Portal games, but I guess thats not what you mean. I would be really happy if there was A Song of Ice and Fire Game. If you could be a knight, lord or freerider and join in the wars of the book series. It would be good if Houses actually fought battles regardless of whether you got involved. If your a freerider that is. Wars don't depend on the soldier's choices. Knights could be ordered to fight and Lords could decide when to muster. So play to your own style. So really, a choice of heritage at the start of the game, then thrown into the land of Westeros. I'd be disappointed with nothing short of an epic RPG though.
I know this isn't relevant but does anyone know this game? I can't remember this games name, but I liked Dragonshard and I remember it boasting similair mechanics. It's a PC RTS which used an overworld and underworld battlefield, so each map had both an underground and overground. Just wondering if any one here knows what it is. I remember the factions were something in the way of beasts and humans. So any ideas?
I'd like more Portal games, but I guess thats not what you mean. I would be really happy if there was A Song of Ice and Fire Game. If you could be a knight, lord or freerider and join in the wars of the book series. It would be good if Houses actually fought battles regardless of whether you got involved. If your a freerider that is. Wars don't depend on the soldier's choices. Knights could be ordered to fight and Lords could decide when to muster. So play to your own style. So really, a choice of heritage at the start of the game, then thrown into the land of Westeros. I'd be disappointed with nothing short of an epic RPG though.
I know this isn't relevant but does anyone know this game? I can't remember this games name, but I liked Dragonshard and I remember it boasting similair mechanics. It's a PC RTS which used an overworld and underworld battlefield, so each map had both an underground and overground. Just wondering if any one here knows what it is. I remember the factions were something in the way of beasts and humans. So any ideas?
Easykill, that reminds me a lot of a particular anime. I just can't remember the name ~~
A game on A song of Ice and Fire, I feel, would either turn out too wimpy compared to the series. I'm thinking: those lotr-games that came out with the movies for ps2. Considering how games are judged harder than movies for some reason, creators could never get away with having the same brutality and general exposé of the dark side of human nature in a game ~~
A game is probably coming eventually though, since there's a TV-series in the works.
A game on A song of Ice and Fire, I feel, would either turn out too wimpy compared to the series. I'm thinking: those lotr-games that came out with the movies for ps2. Considering how games are judged harder than movies for some reason, creators could never get away with having the same brutality and general exposé of the dark side of human nature in a game ~~
A game is probably coming eventually though, since there's a TV-series in the works.