if you could make a game what game would you make?

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
phillip1882
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
Location: geogia
Contact:

if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby phillip1882 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:46 pm UTC

i've always loved the board game go.
its beautifully simple rules, that lead to such complex patterns.
these are the type of games i love.
if i could make a game it would be a game like go.
my primary problem with go is that it can take a full hour to play.
of couse you can agree to blitz, but that just makes the game almost random.
so here's my game idea. each side starts off with 5 pieces, that they place on a 10x10 board.
the objective of the game is to place pieces in such a way that 4 of them form a perfect square, with no opponent piece inside. the square must have a side legth of at least 4.
after all 5 pieces have been played for both sides, you may move the pieces either horizontally or vertically with the same objective in mind. the first player to achieve that goal wins.
good luck have fun

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:52 pm UTC

I want something with the economy and industry of EVE, the Newtonian mechanics of KSP (with sci-fi propulsion and systems, obviously), with viable support and healing roles like Rift.

I have no idea how to intermingle all those.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Ixtellor » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:35 pm UTC

A vampire MMO in a dystopian world, with parts over run with zombies, that has player driven guilds/societies the ability to have real world impact (taxes, police NPC's that follow the orders of real players, wanted posters created by players but enforced by computer or player)

That is full PvP and full P-Loot but styalistically looks and plays like a a goth MMO.

Where age of character is more, or just as important, as grinding exp, etc. (Like Rice vampires where age = power).

Where its not nearly as worried about balance outside of game mechanics.
For example you can get REALLY powerful, but if you abuse that power, spam killing lowbies, the virtual cops make your life hell and you are on the run most of the time.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby setzer777 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:01 pm UTC

I would make a turn-based (or hybrid) martial arts rpg - all battles are one vs one, and the battle would look like movie martial arts fights where the action slows to a stop periodically (with fighters in various possible poses/positions) for you to input commands.

The effectiveness of different moves would be affected by various factors such as current momentum/center of gravity, windedness (either from exertion or stomach blows) , dizziness (head blows), different levels/locations of pain, and body parts being in holds.

I usually envision a system with HP and 3 attack resources (with different fighting styles focusing on different resources):

Stamina is the most straightforward: start with large pool, depletes with move use or windedness, and regenerates very slowly. Mainly used for grappling moves.

Chi represents intense focus - it starts low and builds up quickly, but taking *or* dishing out any heavy attacks (basically anything more committed than a jab) depletes it. Mainly used for fancy counters and special pressure-point (and possibly mystical) attacks.

Rage represents adrenaline - it starts low and builds up when using attacks or taking attacks (based on pain, not damage). It passively drains slowly and drains faster if you are dizzy or winded. Mainly used for powerful striking attacks and takedowns.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

m4d4sb34ns
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:16 pm UTC
Location: North West UK

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby m4d4sb34ns » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:10 pm UTC

Single player? Probably something like Skyrim, with a true complex economy and some form of post-endgame difficulty scaling to keep things challenging.

For multiplayer, I'd say EVE but with dogfighting, no RMT (therefore no subscription) and more engaging PvE. The dogfighting could be frigates or fighters, with no "cost" (replacement ships automatically available for free) but equally having only a small chance of impacting large-scale PvP. The focus on industry and manufacturing already appeals to me, so any improvements or expansions to that would probably be welcome.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:25 pm UTC

m4d4sb34ns wrote:I'd say EVE but with dogfighting,
Truthfully, after playing EVE as long as I did, I'm convinced it's the best game out there for what I want, but it has the worst combat. I give EVE an A++ for industry, hands down better than every other game I've ever played, single player or otherwise, and a D+ for combat, less entertaining only to Tera (which is the worst. Evar.)

setzer777 wrote:I would make a turn-based (or hybrid) martial arts rpg - all battles are one vs one, and the battle would look like movie martial arts fights where the action slows to a stop periodically (with fighters in various possible poses/positions) for you to input commands.
I'm totally blanking on the name, but there was a text based game where you and an opponent wizard face off casting spells at one another by making gestures (slap slice twist point palm clap), and each spell had a series of gestures to execute it. It sounded cumbersome but potentially very interesting.

@Ixtellors game: I'd dig something like that, irrespective of setting. I think one issue a lot of MMOs have today is a lack of player impact on the world. EVE does it so-so, but it would be really cool if instead of, say, GW2s ongoing living story that had fun new things to explore, they had player action directly affecting the outcome of events and storylines, from large battles (everyone protect the city!) to smaller engagements (if 1000 people run this mission successfully, you repel the zombie incursion!)
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby setzer777 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:29 pm UTC

m4d4sb34ns wrote:For multiplayer, I'd say EVE but with dogfighting, no RMT (therefore no subscription) and more engaging PvE. The dogfighting could be frigates or fighters, with no "cost" (replacement ships automatically available for free) but equally having only a small chance of impacting large-scale PvP. The focus on industry and manufacturing already appeals to me, so any improvements or expansions to that would probably be welcome.


I know this is just fantasy, so this might be irrelevant, but what would the business model be if there's no real money trading and no subscription? How would you pay for server costs without constant customer base growth?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby PeteP » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:56 pm UTC

phillip1882 wrote:i've always loved the board game go.
its beautifully simple rules, that lead to such complex patterns.
these are the type of games i love.
if i could make a game it would be a game like go.
my primary problem with go is that it can take a full hour to play.
of couse you can agree to blitz, but that just makes the game almost random.
so here's my game idea. each side starts off with 5 pieces, that they place on a 10x10 board.
the objective of the game is to place pieces in such a way that 4 of them form a perfect square, with no opponent piece inside. the square must have a side legth of at least 4.
after all 5 pieces have been played for both sides, you may move the pieces either horizontally or vertically with the same objective in mind. the first player to achieve that goal wins.

The no inside rule makes it very easy to block any attempts at a square. If inside count when it's on an edge then for instance 3/3, 3/7,7/3,7/7 would block all possible enemy squares. There are other placements which do the same but at least this one is a valid square if the enemy places nothing in it.
Also can they move any distance in the same direction? If so you can place one at 4/4 and another 7/7 and block most squares in one move once your opponent tries making one. Except a corner one where the opponent already has 4/7 or 7/4, but he probably won't manage that and have 2 other stones already in position and 2 moves is enough to block that too, except if he uses another stone to block your way, but if he is blocking he has no time to finish it and he only has one stone he can freely use as blocker which isn't enough against two attackers.
In short: Blocking is really easy, as long as both concentrate neither will win.

User avatar
Yubtzock
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm UTC
Location: Breslau/Wrocław

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Yubtzock » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:33 am UTC

setzer777 wrote:
m4d4sb34ns wrote:For multiplayer, I'd say EVE but with dogfighting, no RMT (therefore no subscription) and more engaging PvE. The dogfighting could be frigates or fighters, with no "cost" (replacement ships automatically available for free) but equally having only a small chance of impacting large-scale PvP. The focus on industry and manufacturing already appeals to me, so any improvements or expansions to that would probably be welcome.


I know this is just fantasy, so this might be irrelevant, but what would the business model be if there's no real money trading and no subscription? How would you pay for server costs without constant customer base growth?

One thing game developers producers/publishers don't consider (any more) for server policy is to have it work in a more P2P fashion, with users sharing the load. There is a lot of research put into P2P, distributed programming and cloud computing (web browsers might actually start doing more and more of that soon, most of it in the range of but not limited to: streaming, image browsing, communication - WebRTC ) , but game industry is too clingy over the "We hold our servers so you must pay us for running them".
The hosting services are essentially too tightly connected to the game industry's business models.

You'd probably face certain problems if you chose to get rid of servers.

(Spoilered for getting sidetracked, not a topic I want to discuss)
1.High dissatisfaction rate caused by something beyond game devs' control - whether or not there are people near you with enough capable machines.
If you want to mitigate that, there are solutions...
Spoiler:
For one you (as a dev/publisher) would need to provide potential customers with an application to test out your capabilities not only to run a game but also to see if they can get reliable connection with the rest of the playerbase network. It isn't perfect for every game, especially fast paced ones, to have people discover that they have no way of playing a multiplayer game, because all other players are on the other side of the world - even more so in the p2p since they also are your "servers".
You could also go all the way and make something akin to a demo - another thing people shun nowadays - essentially to provide a way to determine both, community capabilities (maybe your playtimes will be incompatible with those of your local community?) AND provide a preview of things.

...but - you can also ignore it and simply say it's not your problem as a game dev, because it isn't. "Try getting more of your local friends into the game!"
Spoiler:
And frankly "Booo hooo! who's gonna buy my game now that they've seen/try it!" is actually a valid complain according to... some research someone done somewhere I can't find now. Anyway - sales for games w/ and w/o demos were compared and besides all that people are buying preorders nowadays, paying for early access and and stuff is being funded and payed for before people can even see it, so lets get that fine idea out of our heads.


2.You might want to maintain some sort of DRM, which means you'd still need a server. Currently, providing the hosting services is a fine excuse to make people pay for the DRM server hosting as well.

There are possible solutions to this, also based on P2P network, but that would need to include:
chains of hash-like dependencies to spread from one source (so that validation into your network can only proceed if your peers know how to recognise and validate other peers)
perfectly, you'd need some of the game mechanics or program functionality tied into that, so that a rogue network, composed of cracked clients can't spawn on its own.
you'd also need to make sure not to update it too often, because two above points might make it both a real pain for your players, when the transition slowly takes place and - more importantly - you'd make it easier to figure out what you did hide in the first place, making the goal of the previous point even harder to reach.

This all comes together to the fact that:
3. this scheme is costly to start off and risky, and complicated to implement, and one-off, and server hosting is more stable source of income. Grrr...

This is also one of the things I wanted to write on the topic of "if I could make a game..."


It does not mean I don't have my imaginary best game evaaa. It wouldn't be EVE, but like someone already said in this topic, it would probably be SPACE+ physics +competition with cooperation.
What I can add on the physics topic - perfectly, it should be simplified but maintaining the idea of momentum and friction-less vacuum. I don't want to make the burns and Kalculate stuff the Kerbal way. I'd want to drag and stretch an orbit, make up the trajectories and plan out the encounters to intercept enemies and to rendezvous with friendlies, resupply, fix up, make a slingshot and yet another fly-by, dumping more of additionally accelerated dakka into the hulls of my adversaries.
Also: some sort of Unreal remake. With possible coop, but better than the original had.

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Menacing Spike » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:45 am UTC

Something I could sell for three gigantons of money, basically. I don't really enjoy stuff I make myself.

Jellyfish
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:32 pm UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Jellyfish » Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:59 pm UTC

The first idea that comes to mind is a space pirate simulator, which is a bit odd, but a decent enough idea I suppose.

Roam around the shipping lanes until you find a cargo vessel that looks vulnerable. Fly up, open fire and launch the fighters. From there, the gameplay changes to dogfighting, with the goal of eventually boarding the cargo vessel. Once on board, it changes again, to a fight with the ship's crew in an attempt to reach the bridge and take control. I see this as being similar to a survival-horror game, or the combat in The Last of Us. You're outnumbered, your weapons aren't great, and you don't last long in a straight fight.

If you can take the bridge, you win. Bonus points for capturing valuable cargo, hostages, or undamaged fighters. Points lost if either ship is destroyed during the fight. Whatever weapons and supplies you have left carry over to the next fight, so if you captured this ship by going in guns blazing, you probably won't have much left for the next one.

It just occurred to me that this game could have multiplayer as well. One team plays a fleet of merchant ships, and flies between random points on the map picking up and dropping off cargo. The other team plays pirates, and searches for merchants to attack. Pirates get points for capturing ships, merchants get points for destroying pirate ships.

m4d4sb34ns
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:16 pm UTC
Location: North West UK

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby m4d4sb34ns » Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:07 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
m4d4sb34ns wrote:For multiplayer, I'd say EVE but with dogfighting, no RMT (therefore no subscription) and more engaging PvE. The dogfighting could be frigates or fighters, with no "cost" (replacement ships automatically available for free) but equally having only a small chance of impacting large-scale PvP. The focus on industry and manufacturing already appeals to me, so any improvements or expansions to that would probably be welcome.


I know this is just fantasy, so this might be irrelevant, but what would the business model be if there's no real money trading and no subscription? How would you pay for server costs without constant customer base growth?


I suppose I don't really have a problem with subscriptions, as long as it's just a simple cash-for-server-access transaction, with no micropayments or cash-for-skillz. My main problems with EVE in-game was the exceedingly dull combat, but another reason I never really got into it was that I felt that no matter how much I played, I would never be able to compete in any meaningful way with the people who were willing to spend real money for their progress. The sense of jeopardy that comes with permanent destruction of your property is a good defining feature of the game, but I would prefer it to be a high risk/reward ratio optional route rather than the main focus of play.

Nork
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:05 pm UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Nork » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:56 pm UTC

League of Calvinball.

Every game the rules would change, and there would be no documentation. Failure to comply with the rules would result in your character getting mauled by a tiger, and no you don't get to know what the rules are.

Better yet - make it an MMO - World of Calvinball. Thousands of people existing in a world where the rules change every day and they are different for every person. Each character gets a list of rules and a list of goals. Some goals require you to work with other people. So on Tuesday you can't turn left, you run twice normal speed, and you can't choose to jump (but you automatically jump every 17 seconds). Your partner's screen only shows what's behind him, all his spells make him bounce, and whenever he touches someone he sticks to them for 10 seconds. The two of you have to navigate your way through town without touching anyone, but it's nearly impossible to predict people's movements because they're all playing Calvinball, too.

I can't decide if this would be a great game, or if I'm just sadistic. It's probably both.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Adam H » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:08 pm UTC

I'd want to make a game like Terraria with the Skyrim engine. So like Minecraft + RPG elements + good graphics.

Something that IMO generally makes a good game great is an easy to use and easy to share level/map editor. So I'd stick something like that in my game. Perhaps just a limited quest-creator, where people can make simple quests that other players can choose to download and add to their otherwise randomly generated world.

Multiplayer would not be a priority, but adding a coop or PVP mode just for fun would be doable, I imagine.
-Adam

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Magnanimous » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:20 pm UTC

I want to make an AI-scripting-based RTS. I love Starcraft and Age of Empires, but the constant micromanaging (especially in combat) is annoying and I'd rather reward strategy than high APM. Instead: the game has a dedicated scripting language and every unit/building has its own code. Direct player interaction will be fairly minimal, so it's pretty much just the players' AIs fighting.

Doing something like "walk to these coordinates and build a town center near a good source of wood then make ten villagers, or if you find a gold mine build a town center and ping villager x" could be

Code: Select all

walk -fleefrommilitary 20 30
    if self.visibletrees > 50
        build towncenter at nearest tree | create villager 10
    if self.visiblegold > 2
        build towncenter at nearest gold mine near trees | alert asdf

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:40 pm UTC

I had a bunch of half-made games. I think my favorite is:

Hellion: an evolution-based game, sort of a combination of EVO and Diablo II. In a war for control of the underworld, the evil armies are battling eachother, but there's more than just open warfare. Battles are fought, missions are assigned or volunteered for (volunteering for missions are much more dangerous, since they're usually suicide missions, but the rewards are much more lucrative), and you gain not just experience, but gifts and favors from your overlords, as well as having hidden and rare abilities bestowed onto you. You can evolve your body (height, length, limbs, claws, teeth, weight, skin, spikes...), skills (attacking, blocking, climbing, dodging, finding weak points) and abilities (offensive powers, defensive powers, breath weapons, mind powers, minions). You can become a free agent, hiring yourself out to the most powerful overlords, or maybe challenge an overlord directly for control of his legions. And after that... the sky is the limit. (Yes, that's the 'Attacking Heaven' expansion pack).

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Magnanimous » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:13 pm UTC

I think a super realistic evolution game would be great. It would have to be on the level of simple protists or something, but you could add all the cool epigenetic stuff.

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby Menacing Spike » Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:17 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:I want to make an AI-scripting-based RTS


Check this out!

https://code.google.com/p/bwapi/wiki/AIModule

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: if you could make a game what game would you make?

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:41 am UTC

Magnanimous wrote:I want to make an AI-scripting-based RTS.


Over a decade ago now, back in the days when I was hanging out on the gamedev.net forums, some of us roughed out part of a design for something a bit like that - essentially, instead of only having a two-tiered command structure - units/structures at the bottom and players at the top - you have a hierarchy and rank structure (after all, the real-world military first tackled the problem of battlefield micro-management thousands of years ago) with modest AIs in charge of units at each level - so, rather than having to either take the time to assign each unit specific orders, or assign a group of units a shared specific order that they then all follow, you can assign an officer an order, which they then break down to specific orders to the units under their command (which may, in turn, be other officers) - you lose flexibility in which groups of units you can give orders to efficiently, but the groups you can give orders to micromanage themselves much more effectively.

At its most basic, the AIs would have no initiative and be strictly "by the book" - and the "book" would be available for the player to rewrite. A more ambitious version would allow individual officers to exercise judgement and initiative, and a much more ambitious version would give each officer their own judgement and ability to learn independently - and possibly extend that to individual units. By that point most of your development and computational resources are going into the AI, rather than the rest of the game - which may not be a wise trade-off. It would also mean shifting away from the traditional spawn-and-sacrifice model of disposable troops.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests