If You Had To Make A Game...
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">...what kind and why?</div> If you had the resources and manpower to build any kind of game for any system, game console, etc., what type of game would it be? Why would it be better than the rest?
Speaking for me, I think it would be very similar to a zelda type game. I'd throw in a little more rpg stuff though. It would be 1st person though. Everything would be through the eye of the character. And your "skills" will not be like adding a point to a skill to have better aim for example. Rather, your skill will be how well you can aim it yourself. With increasing difficulty in the monsters, the monsters will be harder to hit, thus your success in the game is entirely dependent upon how well you play.
Not only this. There would be puzzles that would really have to use your brain to solve. The level of gameplay would depend on how in-depth you were willing to go. The skim off the surface game would be enjoyable, but there would be many many rewards for those who were willing to go the extra mile and look for clues for other secrets. Again, it is very much like zelda, only more in-depth I suppose.
Ideally, it would be multiplayer and people would rpg their characters. The clues would either be very difficult to find, or the puzzles would be very hard to solve, but there'd be many of them all over the "world."
The theme would be a world where magic has been lost. You see, I even thought of the storyline. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There would be many types of magic, but one would be lost. It would be called arcane magic. Only bits and pieces left on the walls from ancient cities remain from that type of magic, and nobody knows the language. It would be hinted at that arcane is the only type of magic which affects the world globally, and that that was the cause for the separation of two worlds (one with magic and this one without). It was also the cause of the destruction of that entire civilization that mastered it. Everybody in my game would be a magi of some sort. Some might enchant bows and arrows, others might enchant melee weapons or simply use magic on their enemies, and but they'd all use magic.
I'm anxious to hear everyone else's ideas for games.
Speaking for me, I think it would be very similar to a zelda type game. I'd throw in a little more rpg stuff though. It would be 1st person though. Everything would be through the eye of the character. And your "skills" will not be like adding a point to a skill to have better aim for example. Rather, your skill will be how well you can aim it yourself. With increasing difficulty in the monsters, the monsters will be harder to hit, thus your success in the game is entirely dependent upon how well you play.
Not only this. There would be puzzles that would really have to use your brain to solve. The level of gameplay would depend on how in-depth you were willing to go. The skim off the surface game would be enjoyable, but there would be many many rewards for those who were willing to go the extra mile and look for clues for other secrets. Again, it is very much like zelda, only more in-depth I suppose.
Ideally, it would be multiplayer and people would rpg their characters. The clues would either be very difficult to find, or the puzzles would be very hard to solve, but there'd be many of them all over the "world."
The theme would be a world where magic has been lost. You see, I even thought of the storyline. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There would be many types of magic, but one would be lost. It would be called arcane magic. Only bits and pieces left on the walls from ancient cities remain from that type of magic, and nobody knows the language. It would be hinted at that arcane is the only type of magic which affects the world globally, and that that was the cause for the separation of two worlds (one with magic and this one without). It was also the cause of the destruction of that entire civilization that mastered it. Everybody in my game would be a magi of some sort. Some might enchant bows and arrows, others might enchant melee weapons or simply use magic on their enemies, and but they'd all use magic.
I'm anxious to hear everyone else's ideas for games.
Comments
Oh, wait, I am building that game... heh.
~ DarkATi
That's the kind of game I'd make.
>>
Like Hawkeye I'd like to make an RPG, and like EEK I'd like to make it an MMORPG because none of the existing ones seem "fun" enough to justify monthly fees -- they just seem addictive.
I'd make a Fallout MMORPG.
The key to it would be to make the first open betas have little to no quests/"government structure" whatsoever. Open betas would start out just after the bombs dropped. On their own, people would probably start using a common item as currency -- perhaps soda can ring pulls or soda bottle tops as in Fallout 1&2, perhaps something else.
The main game servers would record the hundreds of transactions each day, and eventually, NPC traders would be put in, buying and selling things at the market prices the game's players made for themselves. The market would realistically go by supply and demand. Players wanting to make a profit would speak to other similarly-minded players about setting up a caravan of goods to go from one city to anothre, and if they got into any trouble they'd protect each other so the caravan could go on to the destination city. If the players became friends they could make it a regular business, if they didn't feel like doing it anymore they could go for a less risky (or more risky?) trade route, or stop doing that job altogether.
Players themselves would realize that getting PK'ed by thieves is an annoyance, and woud set up temporary local governments over little towns or villages. Some would probably fail miserably, turning into hives of scum and villainy. Others would become such successes at enforcing player-made laws against crime that they'd attract people in search for a safe home. The first postwar cities would spring up.
When betas finish and the "real game" began, players making a new character would have the option of starting as a teenager/child or an adult, and the option of starting as a Vault Dweller or surface survivor. Vault Dwellers would start out with bonuses to stuff regarding their education and knowledge of vault-preserved history, while surface survivors would have bonuses to radiation resistance, general toughness, and so on.
Players starting as children in either type of home would choose to live as orphans or be adopted by other players; if they survived as a youthful character until leveling up to level 1, they'd get a corresponding "perk" signifying their civilized upbringing or rough childhood.
For skills like repair, first aid, and doctor, players could decide on character creation whether they want it to use the Fallout 1 & 2 system or the Fallout: Tactics system. If they chose the Fallout 1 & 2 system, they'd be able to use the doctor skill wherever they wanted even without a doctor's bag, but they could only use that skill a certain number of times before needing to rest for many hours to use it again. They'd get a % bonus to the skill if they actually did have doctors' supplies, and those supplies would not deplete. Players choosing the Fallout: Tactics system could use the skill anywhere, anytime, but they'd require a doctor's bag or similar, and the bag would eventually "run out of uses." Both types of doctors could be useful for different bands of players for different reasons.
Players would have a rough time [read: near impossible] trying to "max out" their character. The way Fallout's "SPECIAL" system works makes it more expensive to spend skill points on skills past 100% or 200%, and skill points are usually earned by leveling up, and leveling up takes more and more experience as you go on, so...you get the idea.
The WoW beta tried a system that encouraged players to let their character rest to be more efficient awake; players could choose whether or not to have this as an optional character trait (deep sleeper vs. insomniac) to let their character better fit their casual- or power-gaming habits.
Players could be humans, ghouls, mutants, deathclaws (talking or standard breed, with different stats), or dogs. Each would have different max/min stats, different perks and abilities, and different limitations; only humans could have the Vault Dweller upbringing, talking deathclaws are more intelligent than the other breeds and can communicate with other people but wouldn't be as strong/perceptive/resilient, etc.
An account would only allow one character at a time (and one playable dog, not simultaneously playable). If you wanted to "retire" your character to make a new one and you think your ingame actions were worthy of it, you could submit it for review to let the gamemakers decide whether he/she would be written into the official history of the game, or turned into an NPC, or turned into a character playable by official game staff.
During most battles, players go unconscious before actually dying. If it was with an NPC creature, hopefully a fellow player would find and revive your unconscious body, though they may take from your inventory while you were asleep, or they may ask (or even threaten) for payment for medical services.
If an evil player defeated you or found you unconcsious, you could be taken in for the slave trade, an aspect of player-run business that the gamemakers would have to research to see whether it'd be acceptable for a computer game.
If it was in, slave traders in the Fallout universe would have many of the problems they did in Fallout 1 and 2. Essentially it'd be a profitable business that is very risky. In order to prevent the spying between gangs and by the police typical in mafia-run cities, slavers in Fallout forced <i>all</i> members joining their guild get a permanent tattoo on their forehead. Slavers could expect to be shunned or even banned in many of the player-run cities, and even a slaver who decided to try to redeem himself would only be able to get respect by becoming famous among players as no longer being in the business. Bounty hunters would constantly be trying to capture or kill mafia bosses or slave trade leaders for big bucks and respect from entire cities as being a vigilante hero.
"Ironman" gaming would be encouraged. All characters would have a point value completely invisible to the game player. The point value would be calculated based on character stats and inventory much like multiplayer characters in Fallout: Tactics were calculated. If you died and chose to have that character *stay* dead, the point value of that now-dead character would get added to your account as your "Ironman" value. Though nobody would ever see it, it could be used as a tiebreaker if you and another character did something against each other. A fight between two equally-high-level characters could be decided on whether one kept on dying and respawning somehow vs. the other who survived his or her trials and tribulations.
Character's "karma" and "reputation" values would be based on other characters' reports on them submitted to the gamemakers. A player who was revived for free by another might appreciate it enough to submit the story about it so that their karma and reputation would go higher. One threatened may feel the other player is evil evough to get a lower value (negative = evil). Players would be able to see other characters' reputation value. Perks such as "Cult of Personality" or "Presence" could artificially boost this value to make you seem like an even nicer guy.
This is quite a few more game mechanics than I think most of you will read, but I hope fellow Fallout fans can appreciate the potential the license has for this.
Basic explanation:
You start with a completely customized character, you pick the appearance, sex, etc. and give them some basic skills of your choosing. The most important option would be your faction. It would be set at appoximately 2390, with three different powers controlling different regions of space. Two of them are beating the s*** out of each other, the other wants to break off from the more powerful of the two and is succeeding because its government is busy fighting the war. Anyways, your character starts out on a planet that has just seceded from the more powerful government's empire, but no one cares, and there are people from each side there. In other words, this planet is neutral because it's not worth anything. Since you get to choose your character's background before starting, you can do what you want in this city, but if you don't get a job you're probably going to end up eating out of dumpsters (which is bad for some of your attributes in case you didn't realize). Anyways, you can commit all kinds of crimes here and take over (which is the real objective while you're planetside). This would almost be an entire game in itself, but it's just the beginning - by the time you have your own gang up and running you'll hopefully have a low-grade power armor suit and some cybernetic upgrades. Maybe you'll have some skills with vehicles, firearms, or computers which can be learned using training discs. All abilities start off weak depending on the level of the training program (1-5, with 1 being expensive and 5 being insanely expensive), but they grow in power as you use them, so you can't running around killing and stealing and expect to get better at piloting a fighter. If you have a large force behind and you're not just playing different organizations off of each other, you can command them in battle either using a small tactical menu for when you're going in with the troops or with a top-down interface you can use to either issue orders while you're fighting or from the safety of your home or command vehicle. Later on in the game if you decide to get involved with any of the militaries on any side this can get up to a fairly large scale, with huge vehicles, orbital bombardments, and building captures. Leaving the planet opens up a whole section of the game - space combat. Your character can pilot fighter-class starcraft, but nothing larger (though you can give orders to larger ships in case you feel like starting up a trading company or a band of pirates). When you first get out, only the other planets in the system are open to you, but they're uninhabited aside from some miners. That reminds me - once you do have a few freighters under your command you can take out the mine personnel and security on foot alone or with help and take their product to the market. Or you could just trade with them. Anyways... I think you all get the idea and there's a lot more I could say, but I need my NS fix. You'd need about four development houses working together on this, but it is a game I fantasize about from time to time.
<b>A short plot outline</b>
Imagine a world where the US revolution failed and the british Empire controls the resources of the New World. The revolutionaries have withdrawn to the central/western North America and while they have small settlements and are able to purchase weaponry from the french in Canada, the whole east cost and all industry there is under the firm control of the Empire. In this alternate reality, Britain did not take part in the Great War, and in the year 1925 is the only real world superpower, since France, Germany and Russia have drained their resources in a fight that ended in a stalemate.
The story follows a soldier in the british army, sent to America to fight the rebels who have successfully held their ground, but not gained any in over a century. The tools and methods of the war resemble closely the Boer War and the Great War, automatic weapons being a rarity, tanks being rare and underdeveloped, and bolt-lock rifles being the stock weapon of the infantry. The plot is based around a patriotic young man becoming completely disillusioned by a brutal war that has no rules on either side. While he rises in the ranks, he becomes aware of how detached the higher command is from the situation and how the war itself is nothing but genocidal on both sides.
<b>The mechanics:</b>
I imagine that an Operation Flashpoint-style engine would be the ideal one, since large playing areas would allow different ways to capture objectives, for example allowing multiple routes into a village that is the objective of a mission. The AI of the game should be squad-based and create an illusion of a real conflict around the player, where the keywords are swift moving from cover to cover and massed infantry assaults supported by a few vehicles.
The missions should be very long, usually encompassing multiple objectives that may change during the game. Because there are no portable radios, the armies should rely on messengers to carry the orders, and the messengers should be active units on the battlefield. This means that sometimes the player, if he is in a rank to command an unit, might be forced to make his own decisions on what to do next, since it might be entirely possible that a messenger relaying an order to the player's unit is shot by the opposing side while en route. How this would be done is by using, for example, hidden objectives ranging from area capture to enemy unit annihilation. Because each unit has its own orders, the battlefield would be dynamical.
As an example:
The objective of the mission is to capture a village on the center of the map. The time for the entire mission is one hour. After 20 minutes of fighting the player's unit gains upper hand and completes the objective by dislodging the enemy from the village. Now, a courier is sent from the HQ with orders to proceed to a nearby village to support an attack against an enemy unit of a greater size. If the messenger makes it to the player, the orders get relayed, and if not, the player is left to his own devices. What he should do next is order squads of scouts attached to his unit to search the nearby areas and report what they find. Based on their reports, he should make his next move. The idea is a bit confusing and maybe impractical, but I would be interested in seeing a battlefield where the player, like in reality, is not given all orders by a godlike being that seems to know the location of every enemy on the map. Instead, the player should act like an NCO/officer in real life and make his own decisions based on what he can see is going on.
The combat itself should be near-realistic. This means that it isn't possible to run across the map without getting tired. It also means that getting shot just once may end the mission, since only flesh wounds can be withstood. Getting hit should be simulated by the player actually faltering, stumbling or falling down on the ground depending on how bad the hit was, and should also make his vision swim. Blast waves from explosives might not cause damage, but would most certainly stun and knock down the poor unfortunates caught in them. Naturally, this would require a working physics engine too. The whole point of the injury system is to make the player actually fear for his life.
Probably won't be a blockbuster, but it will contain the story I want to tell.
--------
<i>I have a memory of a cat - I think it's my cat - as it jumps around trying to catch the toy hanging from a string. I'm holding the string. No, it's not a cat. It's a kitten; curling itself on my lap and going to sleep. Sleep in the red pool. Throw in a coin and make a wish. I wish I had a coin.</i>
The setting would be a war between the United States of America and the European Union, a few decades from now.
The USA would be the bad guys (like NOD in C&C), while the Euros would be heroic, noble, etc. You'd be able to play either side.
This game would be very popular in Europe and among flag-burning American teenagers.
I'd also love to make a game about a war between the Middle East (good guys) and the West (Europe + America; bad guys).
However, I don't know if the Middle East has enough purchasing power to make such a game a commercial success.
Probably won't be a blockbuster, but it will contain the story I want to tell.
--------
<i>I have a memory of a cat - I think it's my cat - as it jumps around trying to catch the toy hanging from a string. I'm holding the string. No, it's not a cat. It's a kitten; curling itself on my lap and going to sleep. Sleep in the red pool. Throw in a coin and make a wish. I wish I had a coin.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how this concept has such great mental connotations to Planescape: Torment in my mind while still being original. Even if it's no blockbuster it could still have its fans if done well.
People paying to play a game (read: every game) don't want to be 'forced' to play under a government of other players. Much like SWG, I'd always want to be the best - it's no fun being the street cleaner. So people figured out how to be Jedi. Did it ruin the game? Yes. Was it fair to only allow people of a certain skill set to be what Star Wars is most known for? No. Everyone deserved the chance to be Jedi. It's just that SWG is a terrible game to begin with.
In a game, if it's beneficial, people will do it. Even if the guy playing the character is Hindi, he'd probably eat a burger in-game to get a buff.
The only POSSIBLE way to make it so that 'player governments' work would be to allow players to imprison others and/or kill them permenantly. And there's no way I'd play a game I have to pay for that would have permenant death / imprisonment. Just what I want to do is be paying $12 a month so that some turd got his buddy to give him 'Imprisonment rights' come out and throw me in jail for a week, or get ganked by a few guys while I was AFK or something and have all my progress lost.
Basically, your PVP system is a lot like UO. And UO failed for a variety of reasons, one of which being the fact that roving mobs would gank you and steal every bit of gear you had. The result was that the GMs had to put 'unstealable' gear in, because no one in their right mind would go ANYWHERE with anything but average gear on, since getting ganked and robbed of your precious boots was just lame. Unfortunately, too little, too late, and a lot of players left the game.
That, or you have it so when something happens in-game, someone comes to your house and breaks a single bone in your body. Things done in-game cannot and will not ever have a single consequence except something to your character. And they can always be deleted.
I've been thinking about that. I think the easiest way to encourage it is to allow the metal from bottle caps or ring pulls to be crafted by skilled players into items valued a little higher than the value of the unaltered little metal things themselves. Fiat paper money would probably be used at the start of the beta, but it's of little value other than firestarting and toilet paper; ring pulls and bottle caps (proofs of purchase of sodas worth roughly $1 each for initial currency exchange rate purposes) that could be used for crafting are of greater value to players.
I've been thinking about that. I think the easiest way to encourage it is to allow the metal from bottle caps or ring pulls to be crafted by skilled players into items valued a little higher than the value of the unaltered little metal things themselves. Fiat paper money would probably be used at the start of the beta, but it's of little value other than firestarting and toilet paper; ring pulls and bottle caps (proofs of purchase of sodas worth roughly $1 each for initial currency exchange rate purposes) that could be used for crafting are of greater value to players. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your quote is obsolete. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Changed what my post said.
EDIT: Changed again. I cannot make a single post without finding some reason to edit it, so if it doesn't say 'EDITED BY' under it, then it means I'm not done with it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Probably won't be a blockbuster, but it will contain the story I want to tell.
--------
<i>I have a memory of a cat - I think it's my cat - as it jumps around trying to catch the toy hanging from a string. I'm holding the string. No, it's not a cat. It's a kitten; curling itself on my lap and going to sleep. Sleep in the red pool. Throw in a coin and make a wish. I wish I had a coin.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realisticly you wouldn't even need to make this RPG/adventure, this could easily be a myst style game and still own your bones. All you would need is a good sound score and a reall haunting story, with a few really good graphical points.
Rag-doll physics, with removable and inter-changable body parts. You could slice off someone's head, or split them down the middle and their bodies would act realistically. To puppetier the rag-dolls the AI would hold total control over them. Their moves would not be canned or pre-recorded animations. No, they will actually swing their axe AT YOUR NECK and will keep trying to do so, in any dirty manner they can try, which includes kicking you to the ground, tripping you, and head-butting you.
And, because their bodies act realistically your's will too. You can jump and in mid-fall grab onto something stopping you, and pulling yourself up. You can climb any sort of highly textured surface which may have spaces wide enough to allow a climbing action. You could even be tripped, fall backwards, and have your view move accordingly. In fact, your view is tied to your eyes. If you lose vision in your left eye, things will shift to the right with you seeing your nose on the left side of the screen. Look down, and you'll see your feet and chest -- if you can see them behind all that plate armor, that is! Your head would move indipendant of your body and would look it in the third-person, too. If you have a plate armor worn that covers the right side of your face and you look right, all you'll see is that plate of metal!
Per-polygon hit detection would ensure that there are no problems in hitting someone with a arrow through their visor, or manouvering a dagger through several plates... If you slash a opponent's exposed shoulder joint, you will get no "hitbox error" and hit the metal plate. No, you will hack his arm clean off! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Weapons would have no secondary functions or canned moves. Instead, weapons and sheilds would be bound to your left and right mouse buttons. Click with the right mouse button and you'll swing with your right hand -- and whatever may be in it! You could even select a option to reverse this control, so if you click on the left mouse button you'll swing with your right. Move your mouse and you direct the attack to that direction. Side stepping in the direction of your swing will even add power to the attack you make! Decapation is entirely possible...
Weapon damage would be based on the weapon's statistics and the armor the opponent is wearing. There'd be several factors to which a weapon could hold. For a sword, it'd be sharpness, weight, length, density, and other properties. The armor would have similar stats. If a weapon is more dense then the armor, then it'll cut through. Sharpness and weight multiplies the effect of density. Length multiplies that further the longer down the weapon you go. Whacking someone with a inch-long weapon will do significantly less damage then a 4 foot long sword would. Stats of the weapon would decrease with use and wear, until it becomes too weak and simply breaks into peices; though some peices can still hold some damage abilities!
Everything would be unique, based on their stats and construction materials. Arrows would function like daggers, but would have the ability to be fired from a bow. Axes would function like swords but have more impact then slicing. Maces would be effective in nearly everything, because it just smashes everything to bits. Armor would also be unique, each serving a purpose to defeat a certain type of effect. Padded leather armor would defeat basic maces, but would be defeated by spiked ones. Plated armor would absorb clumbsy axe blows but could be peirced by a effective stab from a dagger. Armor would be split into multiple parts and would have attachments, allowing for some good mixing and matching, and unique armor construction; Not everyone would have the same plate armor. Some would have stripped and inter-connected plates, while others would have pure - solid - plates linked with chains.
Even a basic helmet would have dozens of configurations. Some would allow good visibility, while others would provide total protection of the head, requiring some sort of magical enchantment to let the player see. Some helmets would encase the neck, while there could be a totally seperate peice of armor just for that purpose. There would be a peice of armor for nearly every part of the body. And yes, there <i>is</i> a cup. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Combat would be absolutely brutal and very difficult. Swords, axes, maces, arrows flying everywhere with limbs and broken bodies strewn throughout the area. Tons of wasted metal and flesh. Players attempting to overpower a 3-man tall demon, running up his tail and striking his spike, sending the lumbering beast crashing to the earth shaking all the combattants to their feet and crushing any underneath!
All this and magic would rarely be common-place.
Magical tomes, scrolls, and even potions would be rare. Magical weapons and armor even rarer.
I could go on and on forever and ever but i dont want to consume Gigabytes of the server's HD space. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The key to it would be to make the first open betas have little to no quests/"government structure" whatsoever. Open betas would start out just after the bombs dropped. On their own, people would probably start using a common item as currency -- perhaps soda can ring pulls or soda bottle tops as in Fallout 1&2, perhaps something else.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As said, you would have trouble making people 'want' currency. If the 'currency' was a crafting recepie, it would then be worthless to people that weren't crafters. Calling it 'currency' because some people want it is pretty silly. In world of warcraft, I could get a bunch of linen cloth (used for most professions) and trade it away. Technically yes, I am using the cloth as currency. However, I also have copper, silver, and gold I can use as well. However, this 'currency' is worthless, technically. But since all players will and can find it, and it can be used for NPC services and such, people use it for currency. The entire ideal of currency requires some brain muscle, but ultimately I can say that a barter system would be the only form of trade used. And unfortunately, without money sinks (places you dump money where you never see it again. Ever) you'd have a new Asheron's Call 2 - Players with rediculous sums of money run out and highball price everything, or they sell it on 'unofficial' auctions, where they highball the price and refuse to sell it if they didn't get a horrendous amount of money. The result? In AC2, the poor usually STAYED poor, and the rich got richer and richer. The idea that 'An object is worth what people will pay for it' is flawed - using that logic, a tube of toothpaste would cost $600 since Bill Gates could afford that, and would if he had to.
There are various ways you could make it so that bottle caps or RPs 'seemed' like currency. But if you're doing it that way you might as well just treat it like gold in every other game.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The main game servers would record the hundreds of transactions each day, and eventually, NPC traders would be put in, buying and selling things at the market prices the game's players made for themselves. The market would realistically go by supply and demand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is one of the few parts of your idea that I like. Actually, I like the whole thing IN THEORY. In theory, communism works. In reality, just like communism, your game would fail. However, this is one of the few practical parts. Little I can say about this other then it makes sense. Unfortunately, without money sinks, and if NPCs adjusted their prices constantly, a rich man could exploit this system by dumping a load of money into low-level goods and significantly tweak out the economy so new players would be unable to do anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Players wanting to make a profit would speak to other similarly-minded players about setting up a caravan of goods to go from one city to anothre, and if they got into any trouble they'd protect each other so the caravan could go on to the destination city. If the players became friends they could make it a regular business, if they didn't feel like doing it anymore they could go for a less risky (or more risky?) trade route, or stop doing that job altogether.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trade goods for what? If a player decided to be say, a gunsmith, he'd spend all his time in the city near where he gets the raw materials to be a gunsmith. I can think of players moving ammo and such, but the only possible reason you'd use a 'caravan' would be for things you can't carry on your person. A game system where you NEED to drag around old school bus chassis to carry even basic gear wouldn't be a popular game. Remember that you're playing a game with concievably thousands of other players. If the game world consisted of maybe a few hundred, it'd be technically feasible to make a caravan run of assault weapons. But to who? Sell it to NPCs? Real players want to play the GAME, not spend the whole time living in a mud hut. However, in reality, MOST players WOULD BE living in the mud hut. If I wanted an assault cannon, I'd go out and get one, not wait for one to come to me and pay some rediculous inflated price for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Players themselves would realize that getting PK'ed by thieves is an annoyance, and woud set up temporary local governments over little towns or villages. Some would probably fail miserably, turning into hives of scum and villainy. Others would become such successes at enforcing player-made laws against crime that they'd attract people in search for a safe home. The first postwar cities would spring up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already addressed. Aside from 'real' punishments (imprisonment and permenant death), there is nothing a 'government' could do. I don't go out and put a hollow point through my friend's eardrum and take his XBox. Because not only is that twisted, but I'd go to jail and spend the rest of my life getting human booster shots from a guy named 'Molly'. In a game, there is no way the developers would punish a paying customer (who, after being punished, wouldn't be playing the game anymore. You might as well just ban them), so therefore, going out and feeding a 9 year old both barrels of a shotgun holds little consequence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When betas finish and the "real game" began, players making a new character would have the option of starting as a teenager/child or an adult, and the option of starting as a Vault Dweller or surface survivor. Vault Dwellers would start out with bonuses to stuff regarding their education and knowledge of vault-preserved history, while surface survivors would have bonuses to radiation resistance, general toughness, and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good idea. In theory. In reality, since at higher levels you'd be getting gear like Radaway, Anti-Rads, hazmat suits, etc. you'd be hard-pressed to encourage people to start in the Wasteland. Did you ever take the perks for Radchild and such in Fallout? I never did. It was easier to get a perk like Sharpshooter and then gulp down Rad-X like candy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Players starting as children in either type of home would choose to live as orphans or be adopted by other players; if they survived as a youthful character until leveling up to level 1, they'd get a corresponding "perk" signifying their civilized upbringing or rough childhood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This makes no sense. Why would I want to play as a kid? Why would I ever WANT a kid? I hate kids. I'd get a kid and then attack it with a Ripper. What if your 'parent' goes away for a few days, or quits the game? Then what?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For skills like repair, first aid, and doctor, players could decide on character creation whether they want it to use the Fallout 1 & 2 system or the Fallout: Tactics system. If they chose the Fallout 1 & 2 system, they'd be able to use the doctor skill wherever they wanted even without a doctor's bag, but they could only use that skill a certain number of times before needing to rest for many hours to use it again. They'd get a % bonus to the skill if they actually did have doctors' supplies, and those supplies would not deplete. Players choosing the Fallout: Tactics system could use the skill anywhere, anytime, but they'd require a doctor's bag or similar, and the bag would eventually "run out of uses." Both types of doctors could be useful for different bands of players for different reasons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting, but I'd take the Fallout:Tactics system. The F1 and F2 system still had limited charges. So does the F:T system, but at least I can replenish that charge at any time. Being able to play a good doctor for 8 hours straight is a lot better then being able to play a great doctor for only 2.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Players would have a rough time [read: near impossible] trying to "max out" their character. The way Fallout's "SPECIAL" system works makes it more expensive to spend skill points on skills past 100% or 200%, and skill points are usually earned by leveling up, and leveling up takes more and more experience as you go on, so...you get the idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Straight out of Fallout. Yum yum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The WoW beta tried a system that encouraged players to let their character rest to be more efficient awake; players could choose whether or not to have this as an optional character trait (deep sleeper vs. insomniac) to let their character better fit their casual- or power-gaming habits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This system is still in-place, but a lot of people want the 'fatigue' system back in. If you played for too long, you used to drop to %XP penalties. They took it out, but there's still a calling to put it back in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Players could be humans, ghouls, mutants, deathclaws (talking or standard breed, with different stats), or dogs. Each would have different max/min stats, different perks and abilities, and different limitations; only humans could have the Vault Dweller upbringing, talking deathclaws are more intelligent than the other breeds and can communicate with other people but wouldn't be as strong/perceptive/resilient, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Much like World of Warcraft. But who the hell would want to play a non-speaking Deathclaw? Being unable to speak to anyone would be impossible to make a group or do anything with. And a dog? What the hell?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->An account would only allow one character at a time (and one playable dog, not simultaneously playable). If you wanted to "retire" your character to make a new one and you think your ingame actions were worthy of it, you could submit it for review to let the gamemakers decide whether he/she would be written into the official history of the game, or turned into an NPC, or turned into a character playable by official game staff.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neat, but again remember you have thousands of players. Powergamers would have heroic 'retired' NPCs everywhere. Casual gamers would get very little. It'd get pretty cluttered, and there'd be little they could do. Sell stuff? Buy stuff? WHat would make them different? And why would I want a GM playing my dude? Why would I want to play someone else for that matter? And what is this 'dog' business?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During most battles, players go unconscious before actually dying. If it was with an NPC creature, hopefully a fellow player would find and revive your unconscious body, though they may take from your inventory while you were asleep, or they may ask (or even threaten) for payment for medical services.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was done in UO. UO is pretty dead. Nuff said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If an evil player defeated you or found you unconcsious, you could be taken in for the slave trade, an aspect of player-run business that the gamemakers would have to research to see whether it'd be acceptable for a computer game.
If it was in, slave traders in the Fallout universe would have many of the problems they did in Fallout 1 and 2. Essentially it'd be a profitable business that is very risky. In order to prevent the spying between gangs and by the police typical in mafia-run cities, slavers in Fallout forced <i>all</i> members joining their guild get a permanent tattoo on their forehead. Slavers could expect to be shunned or even banned in many of the player-run cities, and even a slaver who decided to try to redeem himself would only be able to get respect by becoming famous among players as no longer being in the business. Bounty hunters would constantly be trying to capture or kill mafia bosses or slave trade leaders for big bucks and respect from entire cities as being a vigilante hero.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I want to pay per month to wash dishes for 18 hours a day, then get beaten within an inch of my life for looking at the slaver's wife the wrong way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Ironman" gaming would be encouraged. All characters would have a point value completely invisible to the game player. The point value would be calculated based on character stats and inventory much like multiplayer characters in Fallout: Tactics were calculated. If you died and chose to have that character *stay* dead, the point value of that now-dead character would get added to your account as your "Ironman" value. Though nobody would ever see it, it could be used as a tiebreaker if you and another character did something against each other. A fight between two equally-high-level characters could be decided on whether one kept on dying and respawning somehow vs. the other who survived his or her trials and tribulations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting, but I would rather my skills decide the outcome of the battle, not some ungodly force that says I should die because this guy made a lot of characters and killed them off intentionally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Character's "karma" and "reputation" values would be based on other characters' reports on them submitted to the gamemakers. A player who was revived for free by another might appreciate it enough to submit the story about it so that their karma and reputation would go higher. One threatened may feel the other player is evil evough to get a lower value (negative = evil). Players would be able to see other characters' reputation value. Perks such as "Cult of Personality" or "Presence" could artificially boost this value to make you seem like an even nicer guy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, interesting, but unfeasible. Find a way to stop people from getting their friends to do them favors then submit fanciful lies, and find a staff willing to pick through 6000 pointless 'stories', and then deal with 12,000 complaints that their story wasn't chosen, and maybe you'd be set.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is quite a few more game mechanics than I think most of you will read, but I hope fellow Fallout fans can appreciate the potential the license has for this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah it has potential, and in theory it'd be a great game to play. Unfortunately you need to think along the lines of reality instead <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You would probably have to pay to play, though, because it would be so freaking expensive. If Microsoft or Sierra were smart, they would try something like this, but it will probably never happen.
<i>Is this a great idea, or what? ? ?</i>
You would probably have to pay to play, though, because it would be so freaking expensive. If Microsoft or Sierra were smart, they would try something like this, but it will probably never happen.
<i>Is this a great idea, or what? ? ?</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sci fi version of this = Planetside
In regards to Marik's idea, if you want all that to work, you have to get the right community. Maybe you could hold auditions to be able to play on the official server? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'd want to see a game where your actions really DO have consequences. For example, an RPG where if you fail a quest, you can't just walk back to the person who gave it to you and say:
"I kind of got your son killed going through the forest, can I try again?"
*Woman pulls formerly dead kid back from the netherwrold*
"Sure, here you go."
I want long lasting consequences. Or an RTS where when you lose a battle, you don't just hit "restart"- you can if you want to, or you can continue playing the campaign, which changes based on the missions you win/lose. That would be fantastic.
Human interaction is clearly superior to current computer technology. We have skeletal movement, variable weather, curved surfaces and a kickin' interface to get your city's population up.
Probably won't be a blockbuster, but it will contain the story I want to tell.
--------
<i>I have a memory of a cat - I think it's my cat - as it jumps around trying to catch the toy hanging from a string. I'm holding the string. No, it's not a cat. It's a kitten; curling itself on my lap and going to sleep. Sleep in the red pool. Throw in a coin and make a wish. I wish I had a coin.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how this concept has such great mental connotations to Planescape: Torment in my mind while still being original. Even if it's no blockbuster it could still have its fans if done well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As an actual career, I'm planning to develop an animated series based on an epic that I've been slowly working on for over two years now, and going (Torpid Mode Activated). A lot of the time I've dedicated to ideas for the story, and now I'm starting to plot out the events, which tends to proceed rather slowly since I tend to get stuck quite often.
However, I am not shut out to the idea of developing the story in another medium, perhaps, a book, a comic, or even a video game, which in my case, would be a relatively linear RPG, or possibly an adventure game with fighting elements involved. The story wouldn't branch out in multiple directions, and I don't think it would make sense to allow the protagonist to choose his own moral alignment either: he's an elite enforcement agent whose previous life involved protecting people, so giving him the option to be bad would really throw things off; (since I've already started thinking out the story as an animated series, I've naturally forced it into being linear.)
Of all my influences, Planescape: Torment remains one of my biggest. If I develop it as an RPG, that's how I'd like to model it after. In a sense, I'm not doing anything new in gameplay; all my focus rests on story.
Graphics would take a strong role in the game as well: the setting takes place in an extremely diverse sci-fi fantasy world, shaped by the two dominant forces of the world: the arcane, and technology; these two forces are spread out amongst the world in various degrees. The best game I can relate to that has beautiful settings of magic and technology, I'd have to attribute to <a href='http://www.longestjourney.com/' target='_blank'>The Longest Journey</a>. Unlike TLJ, however, this is not a magic vs technology world. While there are places that are strictly magic based, or strictly technology based, there will also be places with shades of both forces in complete harmony.
The story revolves around a young special forces elite soldier (like Jedi, but besides swords, these guys are also well trained in guns, martial arts, eloquence, etc.), who's just woken up after years of being comatose, and in critical condition. What happened was that he was horrendously injured in a squad operation to arrest a psychopath pyromancer. Among the squad was his younger brother, the only real family he's ever. You see, they're actually foreigners from some land no one really knows, and they don't look like any race from around - their eyes especially give this away. They also don't socialize very easily, and as a result of this, there's a bit of racism against them.
Anyway, during the operation to catch the pyromancer, things go awry, and the pyromancer engages them. One attack that's directed against his younger brother is blocked by the protagonist, who gets seriously burned in the process. After the fight is over, the distraught younger brother is enraged and blames his brother's condition on himself, and on the commander of the operation, whom he murders. The younger brother is court martialed, but later escapes.
It takes years for the protagonist to heal, and during this time he's comatose, but he eventually wakes up to hear that his brother ran away from a murder conviction, and is still at large.
As stated, his younger brother is his only real family he's ever known, the only person he even knows of his race. Without hesitation, he sets out to find his brother.
And that's the initial driving force of the game; throughout the protagonist's travels, he's takes through several strange locales, meets several people to become his companions, (a half-vampire, a hate-filled one winged angel, an experimental monstrosity for an assasin - for those of you that remember, his name is Lacerus), on his quest to find his brother.
One of the biggest advantages I see in putting this story in a video game is that you're able to present a huge amount of information, which wouldn't be possible in an animated series. I mean, the Planescape: Torment dialogues are 'massive'. While PST would make a cool movie, imagine all the awesome side quests they'd have to cut out. Learning about the mechanics from that semi-transparent cutter from the bar took a LONG time; I can't do this in an animated series. My best bet would be to design a website where viewers could get a better understanding for the laws of my story universe.
There's a lot more to this, but it's lengthy and possibly dry; anyone interested is free to press for more details.
Both sides could sell what they've taken to each other to buy equipment (better crossbows / swords and shields for the Guards , invisibility / speed potions and lockpicks for the Thieves) , until one side dominates - Thieves can win by reaching their objective : killing the Commander , stealing a crown/really expensive thingy , or activating some kind of device ; Guards can win by killing or arresting the Guildmaster : they can pinpoint his/her location by asking (read : torturing) high ranking Thieves , then hunt him down.
Like that messenger idea, perhaps you would also have a radio, but in doing so, you risk the enemy hearing what you tell them. Assuming we have infinite resources, I would make a smart AI to be the "Headquarters" which takes in typing by you and interprets the message and acts on it.
As you are successful, you are promoted. If you fail, you either die, or get a bad reputation and/or get demoted. And with higher success, the more "distant" you'd be from the scenarios. You'd be in control of more squadrants. It would be set up right before D-day. You're already in france at the time just holding back Germany, but if you do well enough, you command the charge on the beaches of Normandy under the supervision of General Churchhill.
This is all coming from your idea of course. Just thought I'd expand on it? Cool ideas everyone.
My friend's idea for a perfect game was to imitate real life. You'd have similar problems and everything. Not sure I think that is my idea of a great game. You play games to get away from your life, not to get into another one.
Single Player:
The basic background of the game is that sometime in the year 2008, there was a usurping of government by a force of well connected and well backed young Fascists. With the U.S.A. fully subjugated, the rest of North America quickly fell to similar take overs. Like a trail of dominoes, countries began to fall to the same groups, with the same styles.
It is 2010. 1/3 of the world is under absolute control, 1/3 of the world is being brought under control, and the other 1/3 is desperately trying to hang on. You are an up and coming government official in a major metropolitan area in North America.
You have connections to other "rising star" government officials who are already in positions of power. You have connections to several of the larger black market gangs in the region. You have connections to some mid to high level revolutionaries.
What side will you play for?
Be the hand the crushes rebellion.
Be the man who gets rich through the criminal underground.
Be the man who helps ignite revolution.
Or try to play them all.
The AI of the game has 4 main categories:
Officials
Gangsters
Revolutionaries
Ordinary Citizens
The decisions you make increase your +/- influence on whatever category of AI you were involved with. The AI rates your player and treats your player accordingly.
For example, if you chose to be a party loyalist, Officials would rate you highly (unless the game specifies otherwise), Gangsters would rate you low, Revolutionaries would rate you low, and Ordinary Citizens might rate you high or low, depending on how active you are in giving them what they want.
If you set out to decrease crime, the AI for the Gangsters, if it sees you, might decide that you are to be "taken out." If you set out to crush rebellion, you are considered a target for the Revolutionaries.
There are several static events in the game that you have no control over. However, the gameplay itself is dynamic, and allows the player's decisions to positively effect his movement up or down various ladders of influence. The ending portion of the game is where the "Revolution" actually takes place. Wherever your decisions have taken you is where you will probably be on R-Day.
Advantages:
Heavy amount of replayability.
The gameplay does not get "boring," as there is always some issue, some puzzle, or some situation to deal with.
Groundbreaking for both genres.
Disadvantages:
The game would be both extremely expensive, difficult to code, and very time consuming.
Multiplayer:
DeathMatch - choose from one of the 4 "AI" types, choose a player model and available weapons, and start the mayhem.
Team DeathMatch - Same as DeathMatch, except your AI type is your team.
Capture the Flag - Be involved in various scenarios, including Government vs Gangster, Gangster vs Revolutionary, etc, in which controlling territory is important.
Hostage Rescue - self expanatory
Other modes are possible for this game.
Well, I'm sortof with Maveric here, except in a more realistic sense (since it's generally not that easy to cleave peopel in to during combat, among other things). My example is a bit narrower, but a little more realistic and defined (if it were how I really wanted it: lightgun-esque swords, all the way...):
Now, bare with me; this is going to get long...very long (what can I say, sometimes I have cool ideas right before I fall asleep):
Jousting Mod Idea
by UltimaGecko
<b>1.1 Basic Game Description</b>
Two players battle on the jousting field at once, while the other players can be watching in stands or enter a sparring area in which they may engage other spectators in hand to hand combat with swords (and possibly handaxes or javelins). Or it could just be a full on battle with people fighting in hand to hand combat over a giant map and no jousting competition. The two players joust on horses and can possibly engage in hand-to-hand combat if knocked off.
Probably feasible within either the Source engine (as a mod), the Doom 3 engine (as a mod) and any other engine that realistically models the passing of models through the game world as interactive objects.
<b>1.2 Jousting Description</b>
The Jousters start on opposing sides of the field and at the sound of a bell/chime begin to charge towards eachother. During the charge they can make small corrections in the direction of their horse, and more importantly, aim their lances. During the charging period, to prevent blatant attempts at clotheslining the opposite player, players will be required to stay in a charging lane (to assume that if their course corrections send them too far away from the other player that they are forfeiting).
The players may attempt to aim for the chest or head, based on realistic principles of the times - a head shot would almost definately knock a player unconscious or kill him, while a shot to the chest or arm may only wound or knock the opposing player off his horse (which would revert the players to hand-to-hand foot combat) - but can easily knock someone unconscious by falling from their horse. There is also the length of the lance that comes in to play; being that aiming at the head means your lance must extend longer from the pommel and aiming for the chest means the lance will hit the opposing player sooner. This means aiming for the head means the other player may aim for your chest - which would hit first.
Of course, aiming will not be as simple as: point and wait. The player will need to make corrections to make the hit connect where they wish. Where their individual experience comes into play. The players can choose to extend their lances which would make them contact earlier, but with a bit less force (because it can not be secured as well) and make aiming harder (being as they're holding a weighty lance out from their bodies).
If possible damage would be calculated through velocity and contact posistion alone, but if that's impossible, hit values wil be assigned based on appropriately assesed values.
Players may also make corrections with their shields to shield a larger portion of their body, or to brace their lance better.
<b>1.2a Being Victorious</b>
If one player is victorious both are put on the spectator team and a win and loss is tallied to the winner and loser, respectively. Winning occurs:
*If the opposing player is knocked unconscious (during either combat or jousting).
*If the opposing player feigns unconsciousness (in an attempt to avoid combat).
*If the opposing player is killed (either in combat or jousting).
*If the opposing player steps out of the charging zone (during jousting).
*If the opposing player steps out of bounds in the combat area.
*If the opposing player drops from the game.
*If the opposing player forfeits.
<b>1.2b Being Knocked from Your Horse</b>
If a player is struck appropriately, they may be knocked from their horse. At this point the hit player's vision will:
Turn towards the sky (flying back off his horse).
Fall towards the ground (while looking however the player is looking).
Turn black for a length of time, depending on how hard they were struck and how har they fell, simulating drifting in and out of consciousness. This also provides the winning jouster with time to approach the downed player.
[the fallen player may also at this time feign unconsciousness as long as they remain still for a specified server period (probably 5 seconds).]
Once they player has stood and drawn his weapon (which will occur automatically once a button is pressed - so the downed player can't cheat by manuevering awkwardly but can feign unconsciousness), the players will enter hand-to-hand combat (as outlined below).
<b>1.3 Hand-to-Hand Combat description</b>
Hand-to-Hand combat occurs after being knocked off one's horse, practicing versus a dummy, or sparring as a spectator. Only the first kind would be a mandatory action in game, as you don't need to train against a dummy and you don't need to spare.
Combat in the first version will occur solely with swords.
<i>Combat features:</i>
4 forms of attack with 3 forms of blocking.
Attacks: [one slash (horizontal swing), one chop (verical downward swing), one powerful upwards attack (diagonal uppercut swing), one sword bash (swing with the blunt side of a sword in an attempt to stun the opponent)*]
Blocks: [one vertical hold; one horizontal hold, one diagonal hold]
Stamina: continued swinging and parrying attacks with moving will result in getting tired.
Arena: Players are free to engage eachother on the jousting field until one is killed or knocked unconscious. Stepping out of the field results in forfeit.
*A bash would be quite effective, even when incased in a steel helmet. The blunt side of the sword would cause the hit to reverberate more, which would shake around the helmet and throw the defender off.
<b>1.4 Training</b>
Players can train themselves in a practice level, which would features medieval style jousting training object. Where one attempts to reach proper speed an can practice aiming on a dummy that can fight back.
The aiming point can be raised or lowered depending on where the player wants to practice.
*If the aiming point is missed the player will probably be knocked off their horse.
*If successful the dummy spins around and wont touch the player as they pass.
*If unsuccessful the dummy will hit the player in the back as it spins.
[it's basically a physics prop that needs to be hit properly on a rotating axis].
The players may also try attacks against dummies holding one of the 3 defensive posistions.
<b>1.5 Customization</b>
Besides the oppurtunity to provide clans and friends the possiblity of putting a crest on their shield and armor, players will be presented with some of the following:
Points to choose between which kind of equipment they will use:
Increasing use of stamina and an increasing cost of 1 point going to the right (but also more attack/defense):
-Armor:Scalemail, platemail or heavy platemail.
[In: General (arms, legs and groin, Chestpiece and Helmet (including Gorget)]
-Armor Color
-Horse Color
-Helmet Type (open with less protection, closed with more protection but less visibility)
-Weapons:shortsword, longsword or twohanded sword
-Shield: buckler or towershield
<b>2.1 Required Models and Animations</b>
1 Horse
a. Idle
b. Charging
c. Turning
d. Reeling
2 Players
a. Idle
b. Falling from the horse
c. Unconscious
d. Matching the weapon animations
3 Weapons
a. Idle
b. Swinging (4x)
c. Defending (3x)
d. Holding/Moving (Lance)
e. parrying animations (knockback when hit)
4 Shield
a. Idle
b. Moving
5 Target Dummies
<b>2.2 Required Coding (that I've thought of so far)</b>
1. Changes in damage to match it only with physics if possible, but to match different defensive types, if necessary.
2. Handling of Deadplayers and scoring
3. Handling downed players (post-joust/pre-combat)
4. Possiblity of prvoiding combat for more than 2 people.
5. Use of swords (to prevent animations from completing when they hit eachother (possibly to make them go backwards ot look like recoil).
6. Horse/Player as one object until contact
7. Player vision changes/movement
<b>2.3. Required High Quality Textures (Low Priority)</b>
Level Geometry
1. Wood (forests and cut/treated wood)
2. Grass (including the charging lane)
3. Mud and dirt (possibly including the charging lane)
4. Banners
5. Brick/Castle Outsides
Models:
1. Horse skins
2. Armor
3. Weapons
4. Cloth
<b>2.4 Required Miscellaneous</b>
A level to play in. Possibly a field battle if fighting without jousting is implemented.
<b>3.1 In-Depth Jousting Mechanics and Controls Example</b>
Controls provided here are just an example and feasibly would be customizable.
The player prepares to joust:
Initial choice of open or closing the helmet (open when hit in the head would be instant death).
GUI with options for armor and weapons as in [1.5]
Initial placement of the lance.
Left-click and moving the mouse to posistion it where wanted.
Initial placement of the shield
Right-click and moving the mouse to posistion it where wanted.
Extension of the lance:
Mousebutton click to toggle extending or directly bracing the lance.
Player Posistion (squatting to become a smaller target, but risking being hit earlier, up to a full sit, which will ruin aiming a little because it's harder to brace the lance against the pommel)
Mousewheel Up/Down to raise/lower the player
<b>3.1a</b>
Lance Placement:
The player aims the lance where they would like based on the mouse pointer (aim for the head...or the groin)
Aiming for the head gives away your plan quickly.
- contact is usually deadly and will almost always result in unconsciousness
- contact occurs later than anywhere else, unless the player is squat (harder to aim for, though)
Aiming for the chest is usually a sure hit
- large contact area is almost a guaranteed hit
- contact can throw the opponent from their horse or wind them
- onctact occurs before everything except the jousting arm.
Aiming for the arm can humilate an opponent, but causes little damage.
- contact occurs first, before any other (but can depend on sitting posistion)
- contact does little damage, but has a small possibility of hampering combat later on
- other player will most likely drop their lance (but a new one is given with each charge)
- most useful in a dirty tactic, where you can aim for the arm, disarm them and bash them
with the shield as they pass by.
Aiming for the shield should only be a decoy
- causes no damage to the opposing player
- will almost definately shatter your lance
[remember these are actually like a shooter and the lance can be moved whereever it is desired]
<b>3.1b</b>
Shield Placement: The player can move the shield into posistion.
Close: The player attempts to cover as much of their body as possible with the shield.
- makes the shield a large target
- focuses more attention on the shield, making it a little harder to aim
- blocks much of the player's vision
Covering: The player opens up a closed shield a bit to provide better balance.
- shield covers a fairly large area
- aiming is eaiser because the shield is not held directly against the opposite half of the body
- opens up more of the player's vision
Open: The player almost disbands the shield by slinging it onto their side.
- there is no shield coverage (except the side of the body)
- the shield takes longer to draw once in combat
- both hands can be focused on aiming, meaning better accuracy
- no vision block except the horse
<b>3.1c</b>
Lance Extension:
Braced: The Lance is braced accross the pommel and is sturdier.
- The lance is held normally
- The lance is easier to aim than it is extended.
Extended: The Lance is held out and gains about 8 inches on the opponent
- The lance gains length
- The lance is harder to aim from lack of bracing.
<b>3.1d</b>
Posistions (concieveably with just changing perspective, not requiring additional modeling - except externally):
Squat: Almost directly against the horse leaning forward
- provides a slightly higher top speed
- presents a very small target for the other player
- hampers view and aiming ability
- awkward posistion makes it harder to aim and use the shield
- other player's contact would occur first (if he is in anything but squat)
Sit: Average, a slight lean forward
- normal top speed
- normal target for the other player
- normal aiming ability
- better ability to brace the lance than squat
- contact would occur later than in squat and earlier than Straight
Straight: Sitting Straight up on the horse
- latest target to hit means you have a chance to hit them first (but marginal to Sit)
[every instant counts in jousting, though]
- full use of a towershield to cover a great amount of the body
- due to longer arm extension the lance is harder to aim and brace
- larger target for the other player
- marginally better view than Sit with the added height.
<i>During jousting:</i>
Control of the weapon, shield and player remain the same.
The player gains some control of their horse and can increase speed with [W/S]/[UPARROW/DOWNARROW].
The player can also turn the horse slightly by strafing [A/D]/[LEFTARROW/RIGHTARROW].
<b>3.1e</b>
Horse Speed:
Increasing: The horse goes faster towards the opponent
- More damage is caused on both sides by an increase in attack.
- The lance becomes minimally harder to aim.
Decreasing: The horse slows
- Less damage is caused on both sides by an increase in attack.
- the lance becomes slightly easier to aim.
To prevent llamaing, subsequent jousts will feature increased speed (fury of the opponents that they've missed so often), creating a greater chance of a killing blow.
<b>3.1f</b>
Horse Direction: This only affects aiming and the ability to bash the opponent when passing.
<b>3.1g</b>
Immersion
The view will bounce in tune with the horse's galloping speed, which affects aiming and adds immersion. The player may also rock sideways a bit with movement.
The screen shakes with impact of either side, resulting in (as examples):
1. A snap back and then forward if hit in the chest without enough force to dismount.
2. A snap back with view of the sky while falling from the horse if hit and dismounted without death.
3. A dazed effect if bashed or hit lightly in the head
4. A view of blood and then black if the player is killed with a shot to the head, neck or upper chest.
5. Being deseated and falling into the horse and then onto the ground if hit in the groin or chest.
6. A twist if hit in the arm or shield on either side.
7. No movement if hit anywhere with little force
If hit hard while on the horse the view may blackout for moments, possibly during the next joust.
The winning player dismounts and approaches the downed player if they are unconscious/laying.
<b>3.1h Scoring:</b>
[Would be subject to change (...obviously)]
Landing areas:
Head: 10 points
Neck: 6 points
Chest: 3 points
Stomach: 1 point
Groin: 5 points
Arm or Leg: 1 point
Shield: 0 points
Horse: -1 point
Nothing: 0 points
Attacks:
Shield Bash: 2 points; -1 from opposing player (cumulative with hit points)
Forcibly dismounting the opponent: -1 point from opposing player
Kill: 5 points (and watching the other player slide off their horse) (cumulative with hit points)
Unconsciousness: 3 points (and watching the other player slide off their horse) (cumulative with hit points)
Micellaneous:
Winning with an open helmet: 1 point
Retreating from the charging lane: -2 points and forfeit
<b>3.2 Pre-Combat Mechanics and Controls Example</b>
Controls provided here are just an example and feasibly would be customizable.
Approaching the fallen enemy/being approached:
(controls when on the ground are marked by *)
Basic movement (strafing/walking).
WASD/ARROW keys.
*Attempt to stand
Run
Q/Enter
Draw/Sheathe weapon.
E/Control.
Kick the fallen opponent (more like a tap to coax them to standing and see if he is feigning)
F
Trip the opponent if he is near you.
*F
Try to remain still/feign unconsciousness.
Shift
Taunt.
T
*T
When knocked off the horse, player will probably be unconscious for at least a few seconds. When the awake they will probably beging to roll around a bit (in pain or an attempt to stand). Through scoring and feints it may be a better idea to try to psyche out your opponent to believing you're still unconscious.
<b>3.2a</b>
Run: The opponent prepares to get up, rush him for a pre-emptive attack/
The opponent will probably be overpowering, forfeiting would be a suitable alternative to death.
- loses stamina
- increases movement speed
<b>3.2b</b>
Draw Weapon: You are prepared for attack
- You walk a bit slower.
- You must draw your weapon to strike.
- stamina regeneration is slowed slightly
Sheathe Weapon: You do no believe a weapon is required.
- you walk a bit faster
- stamina regeneration is normal
<b>3.2c</b>
Kick the opponent: The opponent is feigning unconsciousness, knock him to his senses.
- the opponent will be forced to stand
- you will need to stay by the enemy for a bit, and can be tripped
- if you kick the enemy when they are unconscious they will not respond
- no damage
Trip the opponent: The opponent is near, make a pre-emptive strike.
- the opponent will be knocked to the ground.
- you will have time to stand and may be on the offensive at the beginning of the fight.
- you will use a bit of stamina to trip someone after being knocked off a horse
<b>3.2d</b>
Feign unconsciousness: The opponent must come near to fight and you may just get off the field alive.
- the battle will end after the server's set amount of time if you remain unconscious
- you cannot lose points in combat for being unconscious
- you can trick the opponent into coming closer
- the opponent may end up much closer than if you stood immediately, and tripping him will use stamina.
3.2e
Taunt: The opponent is weak, show him your strength.
- only applicable versus humans.
possible examples:
"Stand and fight, coward."
"God wills you death, and I shall grant his wishes."
"Stand and be cut down!"
*"Come closer and I'll show you the sting of my blade."
*"You have won the joust but not the battle."
*"I shall cut you down."
<b>3.3 Combat Mechanics and Controls Example</b>
Controls provided here are just an example and feasibly would be customizable.
Combat - blocking and attacking.
Noted in [1.3], there are 4 attacks and 3 defenses.
Basic movement (strafing/walking).
WASD/ARROW keys.
Run
Q/Enter
Draw/Sheathe weapon.
E/Control.
Attacks: Example location:
Slash horizontally. ---- (going left for righthanded models)
Left-Click
Chop vertically | (going down)
Right-Click
Diagonal uppercut slash \ (going up)
Middle Mouse Button
Blunt sword bash/Pommel / (going down)
F
Defenses: Example locaton:
Vertical Block: |
Shift+Left-Click
Horizontal Block: ----
Shift+Right-Click
Diagonal Block: \
Shift+Middle Mouse Button
Kick (attempt to push opponent over or away)/Stand after being pushed
R
Taunt
T
<b>3.3a Attacks:</b>
All attacks could concievably be blocked by any defense, being that the sword would need to be simulated in the game world, but overall, these hold true when the sword is not being moved around much.
Horizontal: A horizontal slash, ideal for aiming at the neck.
- quick attack
- blocked by vertical defense.
- button can be held down to increase power but takes longer
[power can attempt to go through a block]
- little stamina use that increases with power
Vertical: A vertical slash, ideal for getting rid of those pesky arms.
- quick attack
- blocked by horizontal defense
- button can be held down to increase power but takes longer
[power can attempt to go through a block]
- little stamina use that increases with power
Diagonal: A powerful hit that is nice aimed at the chin.
- a slow, poweful attack (arm reaches around from idle sweeping
around to aim upwards)
- blocked by horizontal or diagonal defense
- can kick while it winds up to attempt a more open attack
- uses a large amount of stamina
Stun: If the opponent his hit bluntly he won't be prepared. A strike with the flat side of the sword or the pommel of sword.
- a quick stunning blow which can create oppurtunites for another attack.
- does a little damage with chance of unconsciousness
- blocked by diagonal defense
- uses a little stamina.
<b>3.3b Defenses</b>
Vertical Block: You attempt to keep your sword vertical
- blocks horizontal attacks
- uses little stamina
- sets up quickly
- will block a killing blow when knocked over
Horizontal Block:You attempt to keep your sword horizontal
- blocks vertical and possibly diagonal attacks
- uses little stamina
- sets up quickly
Diagonal Block: You attempt to hold your sword diagonally.
- takes a bit to set up properly (but will block quick hits right away)
- can block most attacks but is a weak block and leaves you open for attack if hit with a strong blow.
- uses a bit of stamina.
<b>3.3c Kicking/Standing</b>
Kick (attempt to push opponent over or away)
- takes a lot of stamina
- can push your opponent over for a killing blow or to regain stamina
- leaves you open to attack but you can defend with one of the blocks.
Kicked/Stand after being pushed
- leaves you open to attack, but you can roll with WASD if knocked down
- uses some stamina
<b>3.3d Taunting</b>
- uses a little stamina
- 3 seconds before a kill results in an extra point.
<b>3.3e Scoring in Combat:</b>
[Would be subject to change (...obviously)]
Killing blow to:
Head: 5 points
Neck: 10 points
Groin: 3 points
Anywhere else: 1 point.
Winning:
Kill: 15 points
Death: -10 points
Knocking Unconscious: 1 point
Winning by default (feigned unconscious, forfeit): 5 points
Forfeiting before standing: -2 points
Forfeiting by leaving the areana: - 5 points
Micellaneous:
Knocking over an opponent with a kick: 2 points
Successful stun: 1 point
Taunting before a kill: 1 point
Taunting before a death: -1 point
Well, there you go. The basic outline. On that note; I am working on something that actually will get made: a Visual Basic RPG...since I'm too terrible with windows based C++. No graphics, but hopefully a filesize that wont be too big and a fairly accessible interface. Should be worth a little bit of fun.
...now if only I could find out how to save in the current executable directory.
Oh well, hopefully someone else thinks it's a decent idea. I'd still want a realistically simulated sword combat game...with a sword you swing around physically and then it appears in game.
but i always like retro games like R-type so if i had some man power i'd make and awesome game like that, with lots of pick-ups and levels full of bullets and lots of action packed levels: like most stories for those games its easy - earth and some alien race are at war and your spaceship is a group of elite powerful spaceships that are earths last line of defense and you get sent to there planet to take out the enemy from the heart
but if i had everything at my disposal then i'd either make a really good FPS, or make a game like resident evil
1. NS Kahar walkthrough of HL single player (evolving upgrades, wall cralling, flying, fade blink, and all the other goodies)
2. HL2 mod - x-men. be your fav super hero deathmatch style (or ns style with resource system)
3. Diablo II first person - now in 3d !!! find all your weapons/armor/ etc, while perfecting your skillz.