This is inspired by a post that beantas made in bishop_pass''s thread, but seeing as how his post was on the first page, and by the time I came to read it the thread was four pages long, I didn''t really want to post about it there. It probably deserves it''s own topic anyway. Beantas suggested that, to complement bishop_pass''s power+politics model, seperate games be used for the actual things which are being commanded. For example, while the players in bishop''s game would order armies to attack a city, the players in beantas''s game would actually carry out the attack in an RTS. The very players themselves become resources. I really, really, like the idea of a ''suite'' of games, or games that build upon each other. I know it''s been done (small-scale at least) - The Streets of Simcity would let you drive around a city that you could build in Simcity (IIRC). I''m pretty sure the Sims has got integration stuff (planned, at least). And so on. Could it be taken to a higher level? To extend beantas''s example, the units in the RTS could be players in an FPS. Superpig - saving pigs from untimely fates - sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

A suite of games would be absolutely wicked. Actually, the recently released Natural Selection mod for Half-Life lets one of the players on a team become a commander, who plays the game as a RTS instead of an FPS and guides his team''s strategy.

Perhaps your immediate supervisor can punish you for any abuse. If an FPS soldier goes wacko, then his commanding RTS general can punish him. If the commanding RTS general decides to be an ass or punish people for no reason, his commanding wargame general can punish him, and so on. A hierarchy to keep people in check.

What I meant was, rather than 3-games-in-1, having seperate games (i.e. you can buy them seperately). What if I''m playing Natural Selection, turn out to be really good, but hate RTS games?

Assuming that the balance between FPS, RTS, and Sim game players is roughly equal, it would be possible to release 3 seperate games, which all get bought equally (assuming things like they''re not crap ). They then all connect to the same set of servers and share the same game world.

From a sales point of view, this would be great, I think.

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Ah, the immortal quandry: qui guarde les guardiens (who shall police the police)?

Haha yes. I guess they are policed by true moderators hired by the company. Or other schemes might hold them in check, such as a voting system.

quote:
I actually suggested exactly this model in this thread, where several different sports simulations would feed into a common economic/managerial simulation, allowing executives to do business with franchises in other sports. Response was largely negative, probably because people misinterpreted my intent (they thought I intended to write all the games myself!)

Yes! I read that PC gamer article and I loved the idea. It seems like many of the ideas in that thread could be implemented just by using existing sports games and some creative jury-rigging. Create-a-player, roster functions, those features are already in games. You''d just create a separate management/stats system separate of these games, which has rules, a web interface, and a community willing to abide by these rules. Player growth/levelling would be handled by the rule enforcers allowing a person to re-create their player with higher stats when that player has been deemed as leveled up. I guess there isn''t any game which allows a separate person to be just the coach, and not a player on the field/court. I guess this coach person would have to be on some sort of communication with his team so that he could change strategies, manage his lineup, but not actually be playing the game.

I think I remember a community Madden league out there that has sort of implemented this kind of system (minus the player leveling and coaching).

Let''s go to EA with this idea! Or better yet...Visual Concepts.

quote:Original post by superpig
What I meant was, rather than 3-games-in-1, having seperate games (i.e. you can buy them seperately). What if I''m playing Natural Selection, turn out to be really good, but hate RTS games?

Assuming that the balance between FPS, RTS, and Sim game players is roughly equal, it would be possible to release 3 seperate games, which all get bought equally (assuming things like they''re not crap ). They then all connect to the same set of servers and share the same game world.

Yes I know you meant separate games and that''s what I meant too. But I suggested Natural Selection because it''s one of the few games out there that comes close to implementing this idea (stealing the thunder from Team Fortress 2). I predict it will die out for that very reason you stated. FPS players are not always RTS players.

Yeah 3 separate retail games that connect to each other! I bet with the growing popularity of MMOG''s and the constant merging of companies, this will become a reality someday.