post your game ideas in this topic
-
Megatron
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 8030
- Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: The United Kingdoms
post your game ideas in this topic
a caveman game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uH56Td-wjs
i played the arcade version some 15+ years ago, was pretty dang awesome, i think me and my brother made it to the level at t=4:20, coincidence?
actually it was probably some other level anyway
i think all the great games have been done already, wouldn't mind another good cyberpunk game though
i played the arcade version some 15+ years ago, was pretty dang awesome, i think me and my brother made it to the level at t=4:20, coincidence?
actually it was probably some other level anywayi think all the great games have been done already, wouldn't mind another good cyberpunk game though
-
SenisterDenister
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Cackalackyland
Wall of text imminent:
A zombie survival game (how original) where you actually survive in it instead of running around killing zombies nonstop. Dead State kind of beat me to it but I remember years ago brainstorming the shit out of this game.
It was an RPG-like game, no leveling, but you had proficiencies that would increase the more you did specific things. Building would increase carpentry, shooting would increase weaponry skills, as well as using melee weapons. Dialog options and speech skills to barter and trade with other groups.
The game was basically a simulation program designed to end after 400 in-game days. The game would end in a few different ways, which would be randomly generated. It could either be that the military managed to reestablish control, or that the apocalypse continues, for the most part. There could be deviations in the endings though, but those would be the main ones. If you did well over the course of the year if the apocalypse continued it would say something like "you did well and would continue doing so, congrats" but if you did bad, or even average, it would say "after a while the cracks in your group surfaced, you eventually lost everything" if you did bad it would end with "and even your life" but if you did average it would say that you lived to fight another day and had to start over.
The game has random encounters out the wazoo and you can barter with other groups in the area, fight them for resources, or annex or invade them to increase your numbers as a group. You could start anywhere you wanted to, the game takes place in the confines of an existing county in North Carolina, with a relatively photo-accurate detail of the whole region. You could have any number of safe houses, from one to taking over a whole town if you would be able to.
You could manage your other settlements by sending runners to the ones you weren't at and could manage the one you were at personally. You could send lieutenants to the other ones to have the game's AI manage them for you based on the bot's personality.
There's a huge array of weapons in the game, rifles, pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, hammers, axes, machetes, knives, improvised weaponry (a lead pipe with a cinder block would act as a hammer, for instance). The game's resources entail wood, metal, gas, oil, batteries, and just about anything else for use in your group and you have to acquire them all through searching or scavenging for them.
The game would be fully 3D with a destructible environment, almost like Silent Storm. Zombies could knock down doors, windows, even walls if they're weak enough. You can use explosives to knock down walls or barriers too. You can even hack through them if you've got a reliable melee weapon and enough time, too. You can build fences and dig ditches and trenches for defense, even towers on rooftops, or just use the roof top. The game would be third person and real time, leaving you to manage the people in your group through a series of in game commands.
Full dialog trees for different characters in the game (there'd be about 50 "big players" that are either leaders of groups or wandering bands that you can interact with, but every playthrough they're randomized in location and personality, so that way every playthrough you can't take advantage of knowing how they act from the last game.
You can also play the game any way you want, you can be a good guy, a bad guy, peaceful, aggressive, play as a loner the entire time, or try to carve out your own faction with potentially hundreds of survivors in your ranks. You can only play with five survivors in your group at a time, but you can give orders to allied AI in the area too, like if your building gets attacked you can give orders to the twenty people there, but only five of them would actually follow you around, but you can release and recruit whichever five you wanted to during the entire ordeal, meaning that you could potentially manage all twenty over the course of the defense.
Days go by in real time when you're playing, but you can fast forward time and the travel system works like Mount and Blade.
That's about all I remember off the top of my head.
A zombie survival game (how original) where you actually survive in it instead of running around killing zombies nonstop. Dead State kind of beat me to it but I remember years ago brainstorming the shit out of this game.
It was an RPG-like game, no leveling, but you had proficiencies that would increase the more you did specific things. Building would increase carpentry, shooting would increase weaponry skills, as well as using melee weapons. Dialog options and speech skills to barter and trade with other groups.
The game was basically a simulation program designed to end after 400 in-game days. The game would end in a few different ways, which would be randomly generated. It could either be that the military managed to reestablish control, or that the apocalypse continues, for the most part. There could be deviations in the endings though, but those would be the main ones. If you did well over the course of the year if the apocalypse continued it would say something like "you did well and would continue doing so, congrats" but if you did bad, or even average, it would say "after a while the cracks in your group surfaced, you eventually lost everything" if you did bad it would end with "and even your life" but if you did average it would say that you lived to fight another day and had to start over.
The game has random encounters out the wazoo and you can barter with other groups in the area, fight them for resources, or annex or invade them to increase your numbers as a group. You could start anywhere you wanted to, the game takes place in the confines of an existing county in North Carolina, with a relatively photo-accurate detail of the whole region. You could have any number of safe houses, from one to taking over a whole town if you would be able to.
You could manage your other settlements by sending runners to the ones you weren't at and could manage the one you were at personally. You could send lieutenants to the other ones to have the game's AI manage them for you based on the bot's personality.
There's a huge array of weapons in the game, rifles, pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, hammers, axes, machetes, knives, improvised weaponry (a lead pipe with a cinder block would act as a hammer, for instance). The game's resources entail wood, metal, gas, oil, batteries, and just about anything else for use in your group and you have to acquire them all through searching or scavenging for them.
The game would be fully 3D with a destructible environment, almost like Silent Storm. Zombies could knock down doors, windows, even walls if they're weak enough. You can use explosives to knock down walls or barriers too. You can even hack through them if you've got a reliable melee weapon and enough time, too. You can build fences and dig ditches and trenches for defense, even towers on rooftops, or just use the roof top. The game would be third person and real time, leaving you to manage the people in your group through a series of in game commands.
Full dialog trees for different characters in the game (there'd be about 50 "big players" that are either leaders of groups or wandering bands that you can interact with, but every playthrough they're randomized in location and personality, so that way every playthrough you can't take advantage of knowing how they act from the last game.
You can also play the game any way you want, you can be a good guy, a bad guy, peaceful, aggressive, play as a loner the entire time, or try to carve out your own faction with potentially hundreds of survivors in your ranks. You can only play with five survivors in your group at a time, but you can give orders to allied AI in the area too, like if your building gets attacked you can give orders to the twenty people there, but only five of them would actually follow you around, but you can release and recruit whichever five you wanted to during the entire ordeal, meaning that you could potentially manage all twenty over the course of the defense.
Days go by in real time when you're playing, but you can fast forward time and the travel system works like Mount and Blade.
That's about all I remember off the top of my head.
-
Stalagmite
- Wandering Hero
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:29 am
- Location: IN YOUR PANTS AUSTRALIA
-
SenisterDenister
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Cackalackyland
Thinking about it, I would have the zombie game set with no end. It would go until you die or just stop playing and start over. To have the game retain that element of danger the game would save every time you forward time, whether through waiting or sleeping. Besides that no quicksave or autosave, and if you die you either pick up from the last save (which saves over the last one, ensuring you can't go back and correct a mistake that wasn't apparent until it was too late) or you just decide to start over with a new character.
Full character customization, height, weight, face, gender, all the aesthetics you could imagine. Character development would work a bit like San Andreas, you work out to get stronger and eat when you're hungry, you also have to sleep and drink water. Alcoholic beverages and drugs also exist and have the corresponding affects on your character (and screen somewhat).
It would be a brutal and realistic as possible apocalyptic simulator. It probably wouldn't sell well, but that's the kind of zombie game I want.
Full character customization, height, weight, face, gender, all the aesthetics you could imagine. Character development would work a bit like San Andreas, you work out to get stronger and eat when you're hungry, you also have to sleep and drink water. Alcoholic beverages and drugs also exist and have the corresponding affects on your character (and screen somewhat).
It would be a brutal and realistic as possible apocalyptic simulator. It probably wouldn't sell well, but that's the kind of zombie game I want.
Re: post your game ideas in this topic
Chuck Rock, mang.Megatron wrote:a caveman game
Well, they're rehashing Syndicate...into a gta clone. As in another 90's original raped and franchised the fuck out of. Really, nothing's fucking sacred anymore.Gimp Mask wrote:wouldn't mind another good cyberpunk game though
A cooking simulator that not only teaches you how to cook but lets you experience full-on RPG decision-making like whether to cook a pompous food critic one hell of a meal or to lace his dish with LSD and laxatives. I think it could be good if they got the right voice actors. Maybe it could even be the premiere game for the Cakester Cube.
I also like Senister's idea but I'm sort of sick of zombies. Maybe replace them with dinosaurs instead then I would be onboard.
I also like Senister's idea but I'm sort of sick of zombies. Maybe replace them with dinosaurs instead then I would be onboard.
-
gobbleykins
- Vault Veteran
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:49 pm
- Location: Canada
fallout with zombies? Maybe that sounds condescending but don't get me wrong here, I think it sounds pretty awesome. You say it might not sell well but I'd buy it.SenisterDenister wrote:zombie game
I've tried to think up games but eventually I get down to inconsequent details that I get discouraged because the game is inherently pointless anyway and so I just forget about it. I used to try to design a lot of starcraft custom maps but never followed through with them, plus they were all too lofty for the software and too complex for the blizzard retardtron population anyway. Truly I am a lazy idealist at heart.
@Senister
I've had it to myself for the longest of time that I couldn't really give a fuck about level ups in games. I'd much rather pick/make a character and have all my attributes/skills set until the end of the game, only gaining a different skill or two during the course of said game and only through, say, a book or character interaction (think how you gain gecko skinning). I'd much rather have a set time limit and be able to have multiple completely different playthroughs (however short) depending on whether I pick/make a medic or a thief or even a trader character than simply faq-making the best starting char and power-leveling/grinding the shit out of it into becoming jack-of-all-trades and essentially opening up every possibility in the game world on that single playthrough (think Fo3), further aided when there's no time limit.
I'd have:
-attributes locked at start
-single/double skill chars (so you'll rely on other party members' skills more)
-limited amount of skill giving books/chars per playthrough
-easy injuries (so you'd think twice before deciding to fight)
-persistent injuries (tied to attributes, curing means finding medic, not curing means incurring in serious penalties)
-cures to injuries don't always work (a healed broken leg still has penalties to movement, you'll still gimp)
-AI supposedly like Dead State's (you can influence chars but direct orders only work on chars with high PC influence and not on every NPC)
-limited time frame
-timed events/shit happening at 2 or more places at the same time (so you can't see everything in one playthrough)
-random starting spot
-Pirates' Gold-type endings where what scoring's based on isn't immediately apparent (means hiding encounters that give huge bonus on endings and change the endings themselves)
At least, that'd be my take on your idea. But then I seriously dig Pirates' Gold, Sword of the Samurai, Oregon Trail and that type of shiznit. Mixing that with a real RPG'd be Scarlett's tits IMO.
Also, if all Dead State was was Silent Storm meets RPG in post-zombie-apoc, I'd be a happy man.
I've had it to myself for the longest of time that I couldn't really give a fuck about level ups in games. I'd much rather pick/make a character and have all my attributes/skills set until the end of the game, only gaining a different skill or two during the course of said game and only through, say, a book or character interaction (think how you gain gecko skinning). I'd much rather have a set time limit and be able to have multiple completely different playthroughs (however short) depending on whether I pick/make a medic or a thief or even a trader character than simply faq-making the best starting char and power-leveling/grinding the shit out of it into becoming jack-of-all-trades and essentially opening up every possibility in the game world on that single playthrough (think Fo3), further aided when there's no time limit.
I'd have:
-attributes locked at start
-single/double skill chars (so you'll rely on other party members' skills more)
-limited amount of skill giving books/chars per playthrough
-easy injuries (so you'd think twice before deciding to fight)
-persistent injuries (tied to attributes, curing means finding medic, not curing means incurring in serious penalties)
-cures to injuries don't always work (a healed broken leg still has penalties to movement, you'll still gimp)
-AI supposedly like Dead State's (you can influence chars but direct orders only work on chars with high PC influence and not on every NPC)
-limited time frame
-timed events/shit happening at 2 or more places at the same time (so you can't see everything in one playthrough)
-random starting spot
-Pirates' Gold-type endings where what scoring's based on isn't immediately apparent (means hiding encounters that give huge bonus on endings and change the endings themselves)
At least, that'd be my take on your idea. But then I seriously dig Pirates' Gold, Sword of the Samurai, Oregon Trail and that type of shiznit. Mixing that with a real RPG'd be Scarlett's tits IMO.
Also, if all Dead State was was Silent Storm meets RPG in post-zombie-apoc, I'd be a happy man.
-
SenisterDenister
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Cackalackyland
Tofu, those are some good ideas, but with mine taken into account that its practically a sandbox game running off of randomized encounters and player decisions some of that would be a bit of a pain to implement. The injury system was already like that, a single bullet could take a person down depending on location, and limbs could be broken, shattered, etc and would need braces or casts. The proficiency system is similar to your skill system, though. In the beginning of the game you could choose what profession you had before the outbreak, and it would be a lot of stuff like a mechanic, a carpenter, a cop, a soldier, a nurse, a doctor, a lawyer, and they would affect how your proficiencies would start out and you would get a bonus rate to the things that were increased. Limiting skills based on this system would not be in the system's best interested, as the proficiencies merely indicate how well you actually do it. There's no cap to proficiencies, but the higher it gets basically is how quickly or how well you can do it.
An aiming proficiency with a .357 (every pistol is different, so the system is basically you becoming more familiar to the weapon) of 10 means you just picked it up. Your character would have delayed shots from the kick since they weren't accustomed to it, the shots wouldn't be that accurate, headshots would almost certainly be out of the question, and reload times would be a pain since they would be fumbling around trying to load six shots while a zombie is shambling up to them. The higher it gets the less recoil it would seem to have, meaning your rate of fire would also slowly increase, you would also become slightly more accurate and would begin to reload faster (getting a speed-loader would also help a great deal). The difference between 10 and 20 may be you could get an additional shot in that may be a little better aimed but between a 10 and 50 would be the gap between someone whose never fired a gun before to a soldier's basic training. Maybe it would cap at 75 or 100, but the rates that it increases would be pretty long. To get from 10 to 50 would be a few months, since its basically the rate of which a soldier would acquire basic training in the army. That's of course if it were non-stop training with it.
Those are some good ideas though. We should find somebody to make this shit for us.
An aiming proficiency with a .357 (every pistol is different, so the system is basically you becoming more familiar to the weapon) of 10 means you just picked it up. Your character would have delayed shots from the kick since they weren't accustomed to it, the shots wouldn't be that accurate, headshots would almost certainly be out of the question, and reload times would be a pain since they would be fumbling around trying to load six shots while a zombie is shambling up to them. The higher it gets the less recoil it would seem to have, meaning your rate of fire would also slowly increase, you would also become slightly more accurate and would begin to reload faster (getting a speed-loader would also help a great deal). The difference between 10 and 20 may be you could get an additional shot in that may be a little better aimed but between a 10 and 50 would be the gap between someone whose never fired a gun before to a soldier's basic training. Maybe it would cap at 75 or 100, but the rates that it increases would be pretty long. To get from 10 to 50 would be a few months, since its basically the rate of which a soldier would acquire basic training in the army. That's of course if it were non-stop training with it.
Those are some good ideas though. We should find somebody to make this shit for us.
-
Megatron
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 8030
- Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: The United Kingdoms
Re: post your game ideas in this topic
chuck rock is pretty good. id like it if you could cut down trees then cut them down into pegs for wheels and shit though. thered be a lot of whittling and inventing because you are blessed with 21st century intelligence most of the time. also, smash in dino face.Tofu Man wrote:Chuck Rock, mang.Megatron wrote:a caveman game
syndicate wars was pretty dope. PERSUADATRON. i wouldnt mind an update or whatever but thats pretty much like crackdown or somethigWell, they're rehashing Syndicate...into a gta clone. As in another 90's original raped and franchised the fuck out of. Really, nothing's fucking sacred anymore.
-
POOPERSCOOPER
- Paparazzi
- Posts: 5035
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:50 am
- Location: California
Zero Clash is a caveman type of game where your a caveman who fights dinosaurs or something, it came out a few years ago on steam but I've never palyed it.
My game idea is to have a game with so many branching storyline paths that no two games would be a like in a significant matter. Also there would have to be some type of time travel so I can complicate it even more.
I'm also still waiting for a combat system that feels cool when fighting. Some type of simple hand to hand combat that doesn't feel like I'm just bashing buttons.
My game idea is to have a game with so many branching storyline paths that no two games would be a like in a significant matter. Also there would have to be some type of time travel so I can complicate it even more.
I'm also still waiting for a combat system that feels cool when fighting. Some type of simple hand to hand combat that doesn't feel like I'm just bashing buttons.
Join us on IRC at #fallout on the gamesurge.net network.
-
SenisterDenister
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Cackalackyland
Zeno clash is really fun. I played it off a friend's steam account and its basically a beat'em up but in first person. You run around beating up animal people in some fantasy setting while running away from being killed for doing something illegal but wasn't actually bad or something like that. I don't really remember the plot, but overall it played really well, the combat was really smooth, and it was pretty; so go for it.
-
rad resistance
- Striding Hero
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:56 am
- Location: Penn's Woods
Don't know 'bout you but I suffer from lazy-ass syndrome. 'd hafta be -exactly- how you put it. Sitting on the boss-chair doing nothing but cracking whip and telling runts what to do.SenisterDenister wrote:We should find somebody to make this shit for us.
I don't think we'd see face to face on some of it, though.
I dig where you're coming from with the starting profession, but I'd be strict with it. You pick a nurse, then you better play a nurse if you want to succeed. Sure you could try branching off to something else, say shooting, but point would be that you wouldn't want to (or rather, it wouldn't pay to) switch proficiencies when you have a party member that's always going to be better at it. Maybe the game'd let you reach a decent "supporting" role with said proficiency, but that'd come at a cost to you and your party. This way you'd be more compelled to try as many different chars as possible, but then that'd mean making it so all combinations of chars have enjoyable playthroughs.
Plus, one thing I'd like to see (unlike you, at least going by the way you're describing firearms, sorry if misunderstood) would be the game not being combat centric (I love me some TBS, tho, so make that 2 games). Take that old Fallout idea of combat not being a necessity and run with it to the full extent. Imagine a setting of constant dread/danger (a la "The Road"), combat'd become that action of choice for only when you're 200% sure you're not risking more than you're willing to lose, and you'd better count your bullets btw, no one's making these anymore. You'd be "hunting" instead of "waging war" (as in no 5 power armored npcs in your party like in Fo2).
Also your "proficiency with .357 =/= proficiency with 12ga" idea is something that should have been used a lot more often by now. If you recall, Silent Storm had that familiarity bonus but it was always better to pick a new, more powerful rifle. I'd really like this put in in a way that you'd really do your all in holding on to your clunker only because you're good with it (possibly giving it some sort of bonuses), rather than constantly switching guns for that slightly higher dmg value.
But then these are only ideas I'd like to see implemented. Your original post read so much like that unicorn we're all chasing that I couldn't resist adding my bits.
-
SenisterDenister
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Cackalackyland
Just saying that the game would have a realistically diverse amount of weapons to choose from (the game would be taking place in North Carolina, after all) isn't to say that the game would be a shoot fest. Its a survival simulation, meaning that you would have to know to pick your battles. Your party would be six people total including yourself, and you all have a realistic carry weight and size system (as in you can carry 80 pounds, but only two rifles since your backpack couldn't carry any more).
The zombies would be almost a force of nature, you could choose to engage them to defend your safe house or you could try to pick everything up and relocate. You may have to defend against human raiders though if you're caught off guard. Different things like that.
As for the damage system, in this game its all going to be fairly realistic with the rounds having the properties of their real life counter parts. You may want to carry an automatic pistol so you could carry more ammunition and be able to reload faster, or you could take that .357 revolver. The bolt action rifle is accurate, but that uzi is able to put out more bullets, and a headshot would drop a zombie all the same.
You're more proficient with the rifle so you decide to keep using it in the event that you come across a raider wearing body armor which the uzi couldn't penetrate.
Gun properties wouldn't be measured in numbers. It would show real life statistics for them, a shotgun would be useful for up to 40 yards with birdshot, but would be more cumbersome than that .30-06 single shot rifle. It would indicate maximum effective range, the caliber, the chamber/magazine/clip size, the weight, and other things. It would leave the player to distinguish which would be better in what situation.
Weapon proficiency would increase accuracy, rate of fire, and recoil control to be able to aim faster.
The zombies would be almost a force of nature, you could choose to engage them to defend your safe house or you could try to pick everything up and relocate. You may have to defend against human raiders though if you're caught off guard. Different things like that.
As for the damage system, in this game its all going to be fairly realistic with the rounds having the properties of their real life counter parts. You may want to carry an automatic pistol so you could carry more ammunition and be able to reload faster, or you could take that .357 revolver. The bolt action rifle is accurate, but that uzi is able to put out more bullets, and a headshot would drop a zombie all the same.
You're more proficient with the rifle so you decide to keep using it in the event that you come across a raider wearing body armor which the uzi couldn't penetrate.
Gun properties wouldn't be measured in numbers. It would show real life statistics for them, a shotgun would be useful for up to 40 yards with birdshot, but would be more cumbersome than that .30-06 single shot rifle. It would indicate maximum effective range, the caliber, the chamber/magazine/clip size, the weight, and other things. It would leave the player to distinguish which would be better in what situation.
Weapon proficiency would increase accuracy, rate of fire, and recoil control to be able to aim faster.
