It is usually a good rule of thumb to take your production time estimate and double it. If you are inexperienced in the field then triple it.
I don't mean to discourage you but I think you should take a step back and take a deep breath.
What I would suggest is to test your idea by moding a game into it. For example, someone mentioned Hal-Life. If you have half-life2 mod it into a demo of your game. You don't even need to polish.
Of course you can't publish your game that way but you will have a test bed for you ideas and a proof of concept. Then you can find people to come work with you on the project, or actually do it yourself with a clearer vision in sight.
New Game Idea - How to Implement?
Author
OK, after weighing up all the time required to get this game done, I've decided that it's going to have to wait until I can afford to employ a development team to get this done.
Since this is not likely to happen anytime soon, if at all, I think I should put this idea in the public eye. If you could tell me what you think of it, or even take it on board, it would be much appreciated.
This idea has the potential to be made into a few fairly different games, but the main concept is this:
The game is controlled by a player who has an RTS-like interface and controls the actions of his side/team. HOWEVER, the team can be human with a first-person shooter style interface (fully 3D, if the RTS-like inteface isn't). This allows several interesting opportunities for game-play.
1) Squad-based tactics, with a commander who issues (probably point and click, among other things) orders to a complete side, with further possible break-downs in heirarchy to allow individual teams of players. The ability to talk without typing to the commander by microphone, the ability to choose to ignore/reject the commander's orders (remember, human players), and the ability to react intelligently to changes in a situation make this a much more interesting RTS than has ever been made.
2) A complete RTS, similar to a meld of Warcraft and World of Warcraft (though by no means restricted to fantasy elements). This can involve the two ideas below, or even be similar to number 1, which has more of a tactical squad feel...
3) A single-player version, where the user takes on the role of commander first, using the RTS elements to play through a campaign, successfully or unsuccessfully, and then taking part in the action afterwards through the eyes of one or more of his soldiers.
4) Another single-player version, where the user can switch between both first-person and RTS styles.
Let me know what you think! The thing that put me off about this was the immense amount of time that would need to be invested to make this game style viable where you need maybe 4 to 8 people before any real fun is had. Bot scripting can be quite annoying, especially to make its AI seem believable, and making an MMORPG out of it would also be a significant undertaking...
Since this is not likely to happen anytime soon, if at all, I think I should put this idea in the public eye. If you could tell me what you think of it, or even take it on board, it would be much appreciated.
This idea has the potential to be made into a few fairly different games, but the main concept is this:
The game is controlled by a player who has an RTS-like interface and controls the actions of his side/team. HOWEVER, the team can be human with a first-person shooter style interface (fully 3D, if the RTS-like inteface isn't). This allows several interesting opportunities for game-play.
1) Squad-based tactics, with a commander who issues (probably point and click, among other things) orders to a complete side, with further possible break-downs in heirarchy to allow individual teams of players. The ability to talk without typing to the commander by microphone, the ability to choose to ignore/reject the commander's orders (remember, human players), and the ability to react intelligently to changes in a situation make this a much more interesting RTS than has ever been made.
2) A complete RTS, similar to a meld of Warcraft and World of Warcraft (though by no means restricted to fantasy elements). This can involve the two ideas below, or even be similar to number 1, which has more of a tactical squad feel...
3) A single-player version, where the user takes on the role of commander first, using the RTS elements to play through a campaign, successfully or unsuccessfully, and then taking part in the action afterwards through the eyes of one or more of his soldiers.
4) Another single-player version, where the user can switch between both first-person and RTS styles.
Let me know what you think! The thing that put me off about this was the immense amount of time that would need to be invested to make this game style viable where you need maybe 4 to 8 people before any real fun is had. Bot scripting can be quite annoying, especially to make its AI seem believable, and making an MMORPG out of it would also be a significant undertaking...
What you describe is basically the game Savage (made maybe 3-6 years ago).
http://www.s2games.com/savage/
A great game, super fun. Doesn't have the single-player mode of which you speak, but otherwise is basically identical to your idea. VoIP wasn't really feasible when the game originally came out. Savage2 will probably have that.
-me
http://www.s2games.com/savage/
A great game, super fun. Doesn't have the single-player mode of which you speak, but otherwise is basically identical to your idea. VoIP wasn't really feasible when the game originally came out. Savage2 will probably have that.
-me
Author
He he, dammit, and here was me hoping it was unique.
However, on the flip side - I'm glad. Means I get to play it now! Thank you :D
However, on the flip side - I'm glad. Means I get to play it now! Thank you :D
There's also a multiplayer version of your idea where each of your "RTS troops" is actually another living person - Natural Selection mod for Half Life.
hey,
Just a little observation, if you do change your mind ..
I would personally avoid using the Irrlicht engine.
It has its uses, and makes a good 'hobby engine' and good for learning,
but if you plan to make any progress yourself, I would avoid it.
Some may dispute it, but there are major bugs, and limitations with it, especially on the terrain rendering side.
The latest version (1.2) does not even come compiled, or with project files, so unless you are confident with that stuff, you could always try version 1.1, which does come compiled.
Again some major limitations, but there are 'mods' for the engine, search for IrrSpintz
Again, also un-compiled, but does have visual studio project files (ver 2005 only)
So if you have visual studio 2003, you'll have to do this yourself.
But if you just want to get off the ground, and start learning, or create a demo you could use to launch or sell your idea, then good luck [wink]
Just a little observation, if you do change your mind ..
I would personally avoid using the Irrlicht engine.
It has its uses, and makes a good 'hobby engine' and good for learning,
but if you plan to make any progress yourself, I would avoid it.
Some may dispute it, but there are major bugs, and limitations with it, especially on the terrain rendering side.
The latest version (1.2) does not even come compiled, or with project files, so unless you are confident with that stuff, you could always try version 1.1, which does come compiled.
Again some major limitations, but there are 'mods' for the engine, search for IrrSpintz
Again, also un-compiled, but does have visual studio project files (ver 2005 only)
So if you have visual studio 2003, you'll have to do this yourself.
But if you just want to get off the ground, and start learning, or create a demo you could use to launch or sell your idea, then good luck [wink]
Quote:Original post by intrest86Quote:Original post by Jettoz
Umm don't share you ideas because that's just stupid. Someone could use your idea and make a product.
We say it all the time: The idea is worth almost nothing. Actually making the game is the hard part. Sharing the idea isn't going to hurt him, especially since this group has a body of experience that allows it to suggest ideas and revisions to it.
So what you're saying if I had the idea to make the first TV I should share it with people to beat me to that success? Well I'm sorry that's a stupid thing to do, if you just got a great game idea that could net you a lot of money and popularity for that game why would anyone with any intelligence go on a forum and spread the idea. The smart thing to do is get a team together under a contract to produced this idea copyrighted by you. You can have your opinion and I'll keep mine, I have a ton of game ideas that will never leave my head unless I program than make it into something. Just think about how Nintendo would be if they told their ideas on making a the SNES console which was one of the best developments in it's time or the idea of Zelda, Metroid or even Resident Evil and other titles. Ideas can be bad and good but also great if you tell people this idea thinking you should share it with others than people who have the power to use it and make it real and you my friend would be stupid to miss out on that success.
EDIT:
Just to add something I forgot, yes I understand that sharing an idea can allow others to help you making it a lot better. However todays society of people are nothing more than selfish people who would back stab you for $5, with the few that have respect for anyone but themselves. I've had ideas in the past that people stole from me, and yes they made it some where with these ideas while I'm left in the dust. I've learned from personal experience to keep ideas in your head and do your best to make them something more than just a thought.
Quote:Original post by Jettoz
So what you're saying if I had the idea to make the first TV I should share it with people to beat me to that success? Well I'm sorry that's a stupid thing to do, if you just got a great game idea that could net you a lot of money and popularity for that game why would anyone with any intelligence go on a forum and spread the idea. The smart thing to do is get a team together under a contract to produced this idea copyrighted by you. You can have your opinion and I'll keep mine, I have a ton of game ideas that will never leave my head unless I program than make it into something. Just think about how Nintendo would be if they told their ideas on making a the SNES console which was one of the best developments in it's time or the idea of Zelda, Metroid or even Resident Evil and other titles. Ideas can be bad and good but also great if you tell people this idea thinking you should share it with others than people who have the power to use it and make it real and you my friend would be stupid to miss out on that success.
If this idea was just "Hey, I have a great idea, lets make moving photographs!" then yes, the idea would be worthless. The valuable parts are the knowledge, research, and work that go into discovering the ways to make it possible. Giving away those could be stupid, but the first bit is nothing.
Giving away the blueprints for a new console would be stupid, but giving out the idea "We'll make a new console and call it the SNES" would not be. In fact, they do it all the time now. Sony stole/copied/had the same idea as Nintendo for motion sensing, but the execution of the idea is still the part that has value.
Quote:Original post by Jettoz
So what you're saying if I had the idea to make the first TV I should share it with people to beat me to that success? Well I'm sorry that's a stupid thing to do, if you just got a great game idea that could net you a lot of money and popularity for that game why would anyone with any intelligence go on a forum and spread the idea.
theres a difference between a game design document and a idea
just the same if you went to investors with the greatest idea ever to make a box with tons pictures in it you probably wouldn't get too good a response. If you had a design for the electronics recording and transmitting of and redisplay of images in a practical manor and a working prototype you might get a better response.
And in all seriousness most of the ideas that do get posted here either A: arn't that original or B: the only reason they don't already exist is because their unfeasible with current technology or game development budgets (ex. the MMORTSFPSRPG)
Disagree with me if you want but an idea for a game is a blueprint to that game design. Telling someone of a great RTS idea and going into details with units and what not is no different than giving blue prints to the public for the best new console system. I'm also talking about ideas in general not on here only, if you have a great idea why share it before you've made something? I've seen a lot of people with great ideas who will also make something and see if theory is equal to practical with their idea before sharing it with anyone. Well I don't think like other people so I'm not going to change my point of view on this, I'm done expressing my point of view on this subject.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
