Dream Games.

[Pink_Mage]

How about a Soylent Green RTS? You're the CEO of Soylent. You have to collect people to make biscuits, all the while hiding the operation from the sneaky reporters, and producing enough food to keep the rabble happy while not collecting so many people that they get suspicious. If the cover is blown on your people biscuit making corporation, it's game over!

It's like a sadistic Sim City.

[Lockeownzj00]

I hate to be cynical, but these game ideas are all so linear. I've been rethinking mmorpg concepts and the like lately--most people know the flaw of the mmorpg gameplay. So I sit down and think of the problem, and how to connect the dots to solve it.

Example: Levelling in MMORPGs. It doesn'y need to be refined: it needs to be gotten rid of. There are still few games as daring as Second Life, and even then, the concepts need to be taken to a new level.

Why is "an rts in this setting" or another 'xcore' FPS a bad idea (in my opinion)? It's the Star Wars syndrome: let's make a game for every god damned genre out there. That's not innovation.

Games like Darwinia, Rez, Façade, Katamari Damacy, Ico...they are breaths of fresh air. The "I wanna make an FPS that..." concepts always get to me. Let's break molds, people. It's the only way to change.

Be bold! Don't think, "oh, a game couldn't handle a concept like that." Modern innovators, the real kinds, have proven us wrong time and time again.

I've also beent thinking about virtual property and why it's often not as rewarding as it should be. Okay, you have your apartment--you can sit in your virtual couch. Cool, cool you tell yourself. You're relaxing, in your virtual apartment. And even though games like The Sims do last a while and are incredibly fun, there is that bit of tedium you feel after a while (but you won't admit to yourself: "i'm having fun, i'm having fun...this is great...") is because although the emulation of reality is spot on and ironic...it's still an emulation of reality.

What we need, rather than fantasy worlds that still emulate reality (of course you're in the enchanted world of M'rulldaar, but we still have a regular economy, obviously traditional property, and we're merely a facelift of your current reality!), we need games that augment reality. Not necessarily in a fantastical/surreal way (although that is fucking awesome), but we, as gamers and game designers, need to create...not mini-games. Just something (I'm terribly sorry I can't be specific--I myself have not figured it out yet, but by god, I will!) that changes this "room with familiar objects" to "my house." From "oh, cool, this statue looks like the ones in real life[/i]" to...to something else. Games can still be dark and brooding and have these game-only experiences that aren't just interactive books (not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily), somehow elevating you to where you really are: "the game world."

One thing I have fantasised that would be absolutely orgasmic and would obviously transfer boring emulated lifestyles to real, organic ones would be true, full VR. I'm talking advanced shit here. God, to play The Specialists roleplay and be in it...but that's far ahead of our time...

[pochercoaster]

One of the main differences between today's games in general and (what I think) Locke's ideal games are the decisions you can make with your character. A lot of the time, these decisions are unimportant (e.g. what kind of sword will I use to kill that important character over there?) as opposed to more fundamental ones (e.g. will I even kill that important character over there?) When the player is allowed to make more fundamental decisions, the game is more satisfying, more realistic, and allows for much more exploration. Of course, these games would take longer to make, but these ARE dream games.

I recently started playing a home-made game that incorporates a "will" system. You start off with 25 days before your character looses all hope and you go game over. Doing sidequests increases your will. Just something I thought I'd mention. It's be interesting to see this used in professional games (or is it already? I don't stay too up-to-date on games...)

[ElfLad]

Well, in some RPGs, you're forced to fight against bosses who want you alive rather than dead (i.e. Yuan or Regal in Tales of Symphonia) What I've been thinking is that if you lose a battle like this, instead of getting a Game Over, the storyline alters to fit the situation.

Example: Your hero and his party encounter an unscrupulous businessman who wants you to fight against his enemies for him in exchange for a favor. Negotiations turn sour and you end up locked in combat. If you win, you go on your merry way. If you lose, however, you're revived by him and forced into doing his will for him for a while until you earn his favor.

In this way, a game can become slightly more realistic and it could increase replay value if done right. Considering how some games like KotOR are able to move towards the same ending despite the wide difference between your choices, it would be possible to manipulate the events of the game in a more subtle, indirect way to provide a wide range of gameplay choices. Also, it makes a good case for allowing some bosses to be harder, because you won't be stuck in the same place if you can't beat them.

What do you guys think?

[Sprinkle_Death]

I love RPGs, but I've always wanted an RPG with in game consequences instead of just a Game Over. I think you make a pretty valid point ElfLad.

Other than RPGs, I love games that have a huge environment that you can mess around in. I loved the concept of being able to explore Manhattan in Spiderman 2 (I play that game once and a while).

Then there's shooters. In one of the Unreal Championship games (or in all, I'm not sure) you were able to switch from third to first person. In third person, you could do different acrobatcs like wall jumping, using your melee attack to propel yourself in midair, and many other things. That was awesome. I also liked Republic Commando because of it's squad commanding features. You have your squadmates do various things like slice computers, set demolition charges, and breach doors. I loved being in command of the squad.

And I have to mention the Splinter Cell series as well. I have Pandora Tommorow and Chaos Theory. Sneaking around and sticking knives in peoples backs somehow appeals to me... go figure. Anyway, I was always the patient, non-trigger-happy type, so I loved these games.


I guess my dream game would be a mix of all the above (except the free roaming part). It would be a first person/ third person-part stealth-part squad shooter. In the first person mode, you would have more accuracy, but less knowledge of where you are exposed. In third person mode, you would have a greater knowledge of where you are exposed and you would have a squad control menu. Some of the missions would be stealth, some would be the squad shooters. There would be an online element with proximity audio in the stealth missions to make them more realistic. You wouldn't need proximity audio in the squad missions because you aren't trying to be sneaky.

Maybe there's a game like that. I dont know. Oh, in case I was unclear, the squad is with you on the stealth missions.

Another thing that I have been looking for is an online FPS war sim. Something where where you're hit on the body determines your movements from then on. Like, if you are hit in the leg, you are slower or incapacitaded. There would be no health. Since when can soldiers take several chest hits and still live? It would make you utilize your available cover and it would force you to communicate with your teammates to form strategies. I know that it would be rediculously hard, but I think it would be fun at the same time.

Also, I've benn looking for a good faced-paced flying game. I haven't seen Stealth, so I'm not sure that it would make a good game. I was actually kind of hoping that someone would make a game out of the movie. Anyone know a good flying game?

[Lockeownzj00]

In third person, you could do different acrobatcs like wall jumping, using your melee attack to propel yourself in midair, and many other things. That was awesome. I also liked Republic Commando because of it's squad commanding features. You have your squadmates do various things like slice computers, set demolition charges, and breach doors. I loved being in command of the squad.

The Specialists (and, originally, The Opera) is one game that already employs that technique and it's often crucial.

Also, a whole slew of new PC-RTSes that are trying to innovate use this concept, and actually make it much moer fun and less just micro-managing, like Commandos: Strike Force, where you can tab into multiple units, allowing for unique situations, like defending a bridge, where oen can tab into a sniper from a high above tower, and an infantry for close quarters.

I agree with the stealth game interest, but only partially. Even though I think the MGS series is infinitely more cinematic, memorable, and just simply as games better than the Splinter Cell series, both, if not all stealth games are in reality fairly linear. Think about it: The layout of the levels is often identical to that of an FPS where you're inside an HQ. Instead...you creep down the corridor and slit the guys wrist. Now, granted, there are advantages to being sneaky, but they still don't make it convincing enough--an alarm goes off, then it stops eventually. For a few minutes you're pursued. They're still fundamentally unrealistic--and while I talked of not emulating reality, I think that's the first stage into augmenting reality. Stealth games aren't even emulating reality yet, they're just trying to.

These games are still quite linear and guide you along almost all the way through. Even MGS3, which is one of my favorite games of all time, had a kind of illusion of freedom, just because of the jungle atomsphere. I mean, admit it: the bases are like mazes. Most games employ maze-like buildings. Not all that new, really.

A stealth game that didn't hold your hand, that allowed you to start from your apartment and end up deep within their security...now that's a stealth game. Where the truly are multiple routes. And even in Splinter Cell and MGS, when they "highly discourage" running and gunning, you can do it. It is possible because they're fundamentally arcade-like (which is not necessarily bad, again), and often times you get so frustrated with some scenario that you'll just run through the bullets and take the -50 health, or whatever arbitrary number. In a stealth game that truly follows the idea of "stealth," your physical decisions of where to go and what to do would be as important as, say...a decision in Deus Ex or Morrowind.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

I don't know if this has been said yet. But my dream game would be the Giant's Drink in the book Ender's Game. Complete improvised challenges created as a reaction from your action. Everything in the 'world' is changed/effected/altered/evolved from one simple choice.

Of course it would require a massive AI, but its still a nice thought.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

My Dream Game? Well it'd be a heavy mix of the old Lucasarts adventure game genre mixed in with a platformer. It'd be something of a mystery as well. The player would have to converse wtih other characters, with a progressive dialogue tree, that would at least make it seem like real conversation was going on (or moreso than most games today). I'd also like to have item manipulation on-par to many of the old adventure games. Something like Quest for Glory 5 meets Jak II (or maybe Beyond Good & Evil).

SWK

[PyrosNine]

Another idea for a dream game besides total immersion (The Dark Abyss) would be a time travel game in which your abilities weren't simply to meddle with time with pause, fast forward, rewind, and slow mo. Like, an enemy grabs a key just before you get to it, and leaps away. Instead of rewinding to the point where he nabbed it and blasting him, you could go back farther in time than you came in there first, and grab it.

Or perhaps a game with your ability to save or restart the game with knowledge from a past run through to aid you. You all know that once you've beaten a game, some of the challenge is gone because you already know important stuff before it's needed. Let's say you go on a long side trip to get a password for a safety door. After you finally get through the door, you discover that the people you were chasing after had plenty of time to make ready for you. You still beat them, and continue.

But after you've learned the password, you could go through the game or that section of the game again, and immediately use the password. Instead of them lying in wait, you'll actually catch them off guard. I'm thinking of a game plot that can be played out like normal, but when you've 'beaten' the game, your character dies and there is a bad ending. But instead of getting mad at the game's creators, you could simply restart the game and use some knowledge that you gained from the ending to get to other areas or the like to get a happy ending.

By doing things differently from what you've learned could open up access to different scenes, levels, bosses. It's kinda like Deus Ex, but a bit more indepth. A big idea of the situation is that after the while, the game characters become aware of the "gamer" and how you have been manipulating your character to do things he was not capable of doing or knowing. Perhaps after much searching in the game, you find out an important person was killed shortly after the game began, and you have to start from scratch and unarmed to get to him in time, and then fight a wave of bosses in your non-powered up state. Now that'd be a hard final level!

[VA_Ninja]

I don't have any major ideas on the game, but one mechanic I've always liked in games were the Shenmue-type button timing games (or more recently seen in RE4). They were just used as mini-game type ideas, but I always thought they could have more potential. Even if not a full game at least a game that had more of it and greatly expanded on it. Each button could be assigned a certain action and you weren't given prompts on which to push. For example, the hero is enjoying an evening at home when he finds himself under attack by an assasin. As the knife comes down on him, you can either choose to back away or attempt to block it, and if you aren't fast enough you get killed. Say you dodge out of the way, and you notice your own knife nearby. It's your choice to pick up the knife, or you can keep running to go grab a gun and blow the enemy away when you meet up again. But grab the knife and you'll be in hand-to-hand with the guy, forced to time your blocks, attacks, and dodges correctly to defeat your enemy. To avoid a monotomy and pattern recognition, the enemy would react differently each time, and so the player would need to change his decisions each time. And all of this is done like a cutscene, including camera angles and other kinds of dramatic effects to make it like an interactive movie. I personally would love the idea and it would provide a new sort of challenge to gamers.