Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What about a new game concept ?

This topic is 5533 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I''m fed up with seeing all these games that look like each other. How many doom/unreal/counter-strike/quake were released ? It seems to me that so many developpers only focuse on technology and not on concepts, originality, and fun. To me game developping became a bit too much commercial. That''s why i''m very interested on new concepts. I actually try to find some good ideas who could be really different than all we have nowadays. Of course it''s something quite hard to find, so I wanted to talk about it and to know what were your ideas, your interests in a game, what do you want to see in a game ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, it seems to me that this post would be better suited in the Game Design forumn...

Anyhow, back to the point. I would like to see more realism and more human AI characteristics. Its is something I aim to implement.

My eventual plan is to create a game with a set number of enemies, take it away from the whole Hollywood "infinite soldier" approach. Thats one thing I would like to do. Of course, this would have to be based in the size of the arenas, etc. Commanders would have the ability to order soldiers to a certain area alá MGS2.

Secondly, I have an idea for an AI selective structure that works on a soldiers experience\ communications with other soldiers. For example, soldiers who survive an encounter with the player learn through a stat based system under a large number of different catagories; i.e: unusual sounds, shadows cast, etc. This will allow the AI to make up its own mind based on past experiences using probability theorms. Again, an example: A soldier hears an unusual sound in the corner of the room; does he go to investigate? Does he leave it alone, knowing that he and his buddies already scraped through a similar encounter. I think that introducing a human-like element of fear in the AI will make a game far more interesting. By using a different set of stats for each soldier we add a sense in individuality to each enemy, resulting in less predictable scenarios (I hope!).

So I've got my work cut out for me then...


If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0

SketchSoft | SketchNews




[edited by - doodle_sketch on October 17, 2002 9:05:08 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to create a game that comments on the nature of reality - kind of like The Matrix. It will blur the lines of relaity and a player will be forced to accept that telling the difference from the imaginary world will be of no consequence to outcomes on a game - to illustrate that perception is perception dreamed or "real" It will be first person though.

Draw inspiration from Black and White - thats a game with a difference !

But a friendly pointer: this is the game *programing* fourm, your topic is more for the game design fourm.

Good topic though.



If it can be remedied
Why be unhappy about that?
If it cannot be remedied
What is the use of being unhappy about that?

It''s time to put a stop to this procrastination, later.

Do, or do not; there is no try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
how many of these doom/unreal/counter-strike/quake have you played? They are not all the same. They are original and fun. Also, they are not the only games out there. I dont mind that you want to make new ideas, or even that you dont like current games, but saying that current games are all the same is just ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about a game that simulates an ecosystem where you can introduce certain types of creatures, environments and amount of plant life and try to acquire a balance. Natural disasters occur that you have to counteract, etc. Kind of like a Sim City but in nature.

Bah - they probably did this already.

A game that REQUIRES people to work together. Person 1 holds door open for person 2, who needs to hold a lever so that a trap door stays open for the next person, etc.

A fortress style game where players can man defensive positions and repel invasions, or storm a fortress with defenses.

I'm not focussing on technology, obviously...

A first person RPG where you don't just click on enemies you want to attack, you have to actually draw your bow and pick an enemy to fire at (you can run around with your arrow ready to fire by holding the mouse button, when you release, it fires). This could work for anything. Shields used to block high or low blows, or knock your opponent in the head...

A dune buggy racing game. With hills and loops and ramps, of course.

A jet or other flying craft racing game along exotic locales. Down a waterfall into the mists, through cavernous tunnels, along the lava pools in the core of the earth, along the upper edge of the atmosphere, etc.

Just spitting out stuff.

A game set in the afterlife or in the ethereal realm, where resources and laws of nature are redefined to make interesting gaming dynamics.

A MMORPG where players can be mystical beasts, each with unique abilities (dragons, giants, etc.), and you can raises levels and increase physical and magical abilities, and oh, I don't know, you go after humans trying to steal your treasure... I've mentioned this before...


[edited by - Waverider on October 17, 2002 1:43:02 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
publishers dont really like things that are completely unprecedented...there is a huge risk involved.

Of course not all games are the same...I think he just meant that he would like to see games break from the current trends... especially if they were to get away from the trappings of genre.
too often, things are done a certain way because "its an FPS" or something. Which is no excuse.

I hate to toot my own horn here, but if you check out the game I am working on, it is technically a 1st/3rd person shooter, but it avoids a lot of the things that the always seems to have. For instance, it doesn''t have any kind of health meter, there is no ammo or new weapons lying around...

url: http://www.msu.edu/~meyermi5

an example: No One Lives Forever had a very unique setting and style, but the gameplay itself is nearly identical to all the other first person shooters...

So what I would like to see in games is for them to quit doing things a certain way just because some other good game did it that way. Super Smash Bros. is about as far removed from Street Fighter/Mortal cambat as you can get and still have a "fighting game", and look at the great game that resulted in. Basically, I don''t like to see people designing games to genres. Genres are for classifying existing games, not guidelines for making them.

Well...thoser just my thoughts on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Game ideas are plentiful and cheap. Many are also not very good. It''s hard to tell whether a given idea is good until you''ve invested a lot of time and effort into implementing it. Nobody wants to waste time and effort on a bad idea, so they''d rather use ideas already known to be good and refine the concept or introduce a new twist. Innovation is risky business, and as the games industry stands it is actually rather risk averse (devil-may-care posturing to the contrary).

If you''re really dedicated to innovation, make and buy innovative games. Keep in mind, however, that "innovative" isn''t the same as good. In creating a new kind of game, you''re asking the potential player to take a risk with you: you dared to make the game, and you''re daring him to try it. Thus quality should be a primary goal for innovators - you can''t rely on the strength of your concept because you don''t know the strength of your concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Waverider
How about a game that simulates an ecosystem where you can introduce certain types of creatures, environments and amount of plant life and try to acquire a balance. Natural disasters occur that you have to counteract, etc. Kind of like a Sim City but in nature.

Bah - they probably did this already.

Sim Life & Sim Earth

quote:
Original post by Waverider A fortress style game where players can man defensive positions and repel invasions, or storm a fortress with defenses.

Sounds awfully a lot like the Assault gamemode in Unreal Tournament.

quote:
Original post by Waverider A first person RPG where you don''t just click on enemies you want to attack, you have to actually draw your bow and pick an enemy to fire at (you can run around with your arrow ready to fire by holding the mouse button, when you release, it fires). This could work for anything. Shields used to block high or low blows, or knock your opponent in the head...

Morrowind''s weapons work like that, the shields are passive though.

quote:
Original post by Waverider A dune buggy racing game. With hills and loops and ramps, of course.

I''ve seen a few older (more than 6 years old) ones, can''t remember any specific names though.

quote:
Original post by Waverider A game set in the afterlife or in the ethereal realm, where resources and laws of nature are redefined to make interesting gaming dynamics.

Ever heard of Afterlife?

Not picking on you, just trying to show you that most ideas have already been used somewhere. It is however rare to see a successful game using those concepts but if you think a concept is much more fun to work with than another standard game then go for it, who knows you might just hit the right combination of new game elements at the right time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think games that tell a story should do just that not just give you the whole story in the promo for the game. I mean let the player explore the character and game world not just be given goals to achieve. Also I think the problem is''nt with the developers it''s the publishers only willing to back known cash cows like fps and branded games. Anything different that comes thier way unless it''s designed by a certain unnamed game developer of old who likes to get his mug shot in any mag on the planet(anyone for a game of populas)then they just are not willing to take a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all I''d like to say that I choosed the game programming forum because of the fact I wanted to talk about innovation in games from programming.
But game design is good too.

I''ve read your post [doodle_sketch] and the AI side interested me.
That''s right AI is becoming very important. I think personanlity is becoming too.
What about character with moods, feelings, personnality ? A character you want to talk too...
Of course we had to make a world with these.

I love programming/designing (on the creative side) and I though of something close to nature. A game where you can be in nature (i believe in shamanism) and not on dirty cities and avoiding cars.

What can be the concept, the story, the aim of the game.
This is the real (hard) question !
Something else than beating them all, or finding powered gems...

I think that''s something we have to talk about so if you have any other suggestions, ideas.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Games, for me, are to tell stories, tell histories, give players knowledge about world, while still allow them to be freedom in choosing what they want to do or what they want to be. It''s a combination of movies and real life, since everything is becoming more realistic.

I got this wonderful story, but I still don''t know how to present it in a game. Too complex for a game (camera settings, storyline, events)...too complex for a movie (you gotta be in that story, not just watching/listening it). That''s what I''m thinking now..."how do I make a game that fits my story?" Seriously, RTS/RPG/FPS or any kind of genre out there, none of them can .


My compiler generates one error message: "does not compile."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
What about character with moods, feelings, personnality ? A character you want to talk too...
Of course we had to make a world with these.


Another good idea, but much harder to implement. In order to run a system like this you would need to be able to define every meaning of every word in the players language, then define principles of how each of these should or could be taken into context based on different meaning, situation and relevance.

What would be easier to work with (IMHO, but though I have done little research in this area as of yet, it is another that I hope to follow) is the pre-programmed simulation of emotion in voice synthesis. A system like this could be integrated into the AI system I detailed above with relative ease.


If at first you don''t succeed, call it version 1.0

SketchSoft | SketchNews


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah man... keep it simple... e.g... game idea... "Dune" rip off... where ya simply rid a worm all day and go... "ahhhhchooeew... " with that ace gun... LOL

lol... Dude Racers 10024.. and you get to shot at other worm riders,,, with that ace "ahhhchooeew" gun... LOL... I think I make a demo of this... hahaha... would be ace.. hehe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, I have read it all and there''s a lot of talk about incredibly complex AI, realistic conversation, unrestricted RPGs that still have an incredible story, etc. This stuff isn''t where you''re going to find the next big game. Almost all the really good games are variations or improvements on an existing idea, not a huge leap ahead. We need more innovation on what we have to make it better, the revolutionary games will happen as we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well its pointless making the ultimate game AI that learn.. (true memory, testing system and logical system) cus u wont be able to get more than 5 guys going before peoples computers burn out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve noticed that since the request for keeping the thread simplier was made, it has stagnated! What does this tell us? That gaming ideas have dried up, come to a climax? That all viable ideas have already been explored and that the next logical step is to evolve the existing genres?

Not intended to be insulting (and appologies if anybody takes it in offence), but simply trying to reopen an interesting and possibly fruitful discussion.


If at first you don''t succeed, call it version 1.0

SketchSoft | SketchNews


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder though....does he mean a new idea and concept for existing genres, or a new genre altogether? When you really think about it, not too many people have tried to forge new genres altogether. Most are your standard RPG, FPS, RTS, Adventure and Sports games. There are a few others, but that''s basically it. The funny thing is that two of the most successful games of all time don''t fit into any genre....Myst and The Sims. Kinda makes you wonder....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Genres are bad.
Don''t think in terms of genre when making a game.
Think of what you want the player to experience, and make something that allows him to do so.
If it happens to come out like a first pesorn shooter, or a strategy game, then that''s fine, you don''t have to break away from them completly to make an innovative game. But don''t start out saying "Let''s design a game!"

Just my thoughts. I don''t think that Miyamoto, Molyneaux, Meier(lots of ''M''s), and those other dudes design with a genre in mind, so you get things like Pikmin, Black & White, The Sims, etc. that don''t really fit into any existing genre.

Just my thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one, would like to see new interface for PC, other than the typical mouse + keyboard. The idea behind games seems to evolve behind these two things.

Imagine if, we have a sphere as input mechanism, I wonder what type of interactivity people can do with it. I am sure, new, type of play style, is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oooh oooh. I can''t resist to post my opinion here.

Games look like eachother. Developers focus on technology and not concepts, originality, and fun:

Well, in a way it''s true, but hey, it''s a tried and tested formula. The fact of the matter is that game companies DON''T dictacte what we play as much as you''d think they do. Yeah, Wolfenstine was cool, and Doom, yeah, better graphics, and then Quake, kinda getting old. But I''ll tell ya what, if people didn''t buy the sequels and clones of all of these games, they wouldn''t be made anymore.
So game developers are just following the voice ( dollars ) of the gamers.

As for technology, yeah, game companies follow that closely. This is for a few reasons. One of the biggest is that most modern day gamers don''t want to sit down and give a game a chance. I know cuz I program games, nd a lot fewer people play my games that I thought they would. And almost no one wants to spend their money on things they''ve never seen. So the only way to get people to buy the games for game companies is to either copy something that was done once before, so the customer knows what he or she is getting, or make is super flashy and filled with the latest graphics. To get good graphics you need good coders and good technology. So, yeah, you''re right again, that game developers will focus on the technology.

There are many original/enjoyable games out there. Well, not too many original ones, but sometimes the entertainment from a game comes from actually playing it, rather than evaluating the idea behind it. One game I really liked was Gran Tourismo 3. Very fun game to play, but original? hehe, they copied reality as best they could. So in fact it is one of the most UN-original games ever. But it is still a fun game to play.

In conclusion, I would say don''t criticize what games others are making. If you feel like criticizing, criticize what people want. But insulting people''s opinions gets you nowhere, so I''d say it''s mostly a waste of time.

If you see there is a true void of originality in game design, and that is what the gamers truly want but they don''t know it, if anything, that should make you happy, assuming you are a free thinker. Just makes it that much easier for you to make games to satisfy everyone and you can make a billion dollars while you''re at it.



--Vic--
PS. Wanna see a somewhat original game? Check out:
http://gamedev.net/community/gds/projects/default.asp?projectID=819

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey everyone,

Please excuse the cliches used in the following, and the somewhat anti-RPG slant. I am simply trying to make a point.

I am often amazed at what lengths people go in games. In RPGs, for instance, battling countless monotonous enemies to gain experience points to fight a boss. In adventure games, searching for hours to find one artifact. In platform games, dying countless times to get to the next level. I would like to see more games that deal with the essential issue at hand: Having fun. I understand that this is achieved in a variety of ways. It is fun for a player to reach a goal, to feel a sense of accomplishment. It is also fun to have your adreniline pumping, reflexes twitching, and being controlled in the midst of chaos. This is why games like Final Fantasy and Doom appeal to so many people, I think. But there are other ways to have fun, ways that games haven''t even touched on. No, I''m not talking about porn, I''m not even sure what ways I''m talking about. It''d be interesting to see a scientific report on what creates fun for people. I don''t think that making a game more real would necissarily make it more fun; it might add a bit to the sense of accomplishment and authenticity, but not much else. I think people should venture farther than just "what if we had this cool feature", and rethink the principles of gaming.

Some people spend hours upon hours staring at a small monitor in a badly-lit room. If you ask them about the game they''re playing, they''ll usually say something about just reaching level 23, and having defeated a dungeon full of monsters, and just spotting the boss. Often, they refer to the game world as reality, and speak as if they are simply doing a job. This, in my opinion, is the main flaw of gaming: the game world becomes a reality, and everything in it is no longer fantasy, but instead a job. The question arises: Why play? Because it''s fun? I think we need to rethink what video game "fun" should be, and venture into areas more satisfying. Games like Super Mario Bros have always been extremely fun, in my opinion, becuase the sucessfully blend fast paced action, immersion in the game world (in moderation, a good thing), and an great sense of accomplishment. But we shouldn''t limit ourselves to just these areas of enjoyment. There are sure to be others out there, we just need to find them, and harvest them into great games.

~~Mark~~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Hi...

I think [Roof Top Pew Wee] had noticed something important, and it can be summed up with only one word: DOLLARS !
Why should they take a risk when they only have to make a (better done) clone ?
What a lack of creativity !

Do you remember the 80''s games ?
There were so many good concepts, creativity and fun !
Of course nowadays things have changed and technology is something too important.

Let''s come back to THE question:

Let''s talk about things you really want to see I a game, what concepts, aims. We musn''t talk about technology (3D or not, resolution, speed, terrain rendering...):
It''s only creativity.
I wanted this post to be an discussion between persons who wants to see other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi...

I think [Roof Top Pew Wee] had noticed something important, and it can be summed up with only one word: DOLLARS !
Why should they take a risk when they only have to make a (better done) clone ?
What a lack of creativity !

Do you remember the 80''s games ?
There were so many good concepts, creativity and fun !
Of course nowadays things have changed and technology is something too important.

Let''s come back to THE question:

Let''s talk about things you really want to see I a game, what concepts, aims. We musn''t talk about technology (3D or not, resolution, speed, terrain rendering...):
It''s only creativity.
I wanted this post to be an discussion between persons who wants to see other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites