I've had this idea flot around in my head and I was just wondering what you guys thought.
So it's a FPS but with an RPG element, kinda like fallout 3 but with gameplay more like traditional fps'.
You'd be a contracted Assassin working for who ever and living in a very large virtual city. You could navigate about in the city and you'd actually see many people going about their busy days. You can take cabs, drive cars (half life 2 style not GTA style) and ride elevators.
The whole goal is to track down your contract targets and assassinate them without being caught. Of course the fuzz is out and about so you have to be cautious. If someone witnesses you kill someone than the likelyhood of your apprehension is very high. So rather than just finding your target and killing them, you've got to stalk them and identify a way to kill them without being caught. (maybe they take a walk every monday in a well covered park) You get bonus points for making the incident look like an accident, possibly rig their gas line to explode??.
As the story progresses and your work becomes more well known in the underworld other assassins (AI's) are contracted to find and kill you. So soon in the game you've got to watch out behind your back for suspicious activities and possibly relocate your layer to prevent sabatoge or death, and if possible neturalize your assassins.
So the focus of the game is observation and well timed and executed shots.
Yeah, anyways, what do you think?
You could even have a virtual world with many online players where the goal is to neturalize as many opponents as you can. The more opponents you neturalize the more money the bounty on your head is worth.
Assassin FPS
Re:
It sounds perverted. I think in general, the desire to see things explode or gets destroyed, it may be a type of perversion. Why should it be okay to feel entertained when something is damaged, destroyed, or killed? The mindset is promoted and accepted widely regardless.
It sounds perverted. I think in general, the desire to see things explode or gets destroyed, it may be a type of perversion. Why should it be okay to feel entertained when something is damaged, destroyed, or killed? The mindset is promoted and accepted widely regardless.
I think the idea has some legs, but you'll run in to a lot of problems with an open world and this kind of game. There is probably a reason why the Hitman levels are all seperate from each other. There is also probably a reason why GTA's gameplay is relatively simple. I'm not saying it couldn't work, in fact I'd probably buy this game if it worked as well as you hope. Also most people prefer action from games with guns, not waiting and stalking someone for a week. At this point it becomes much harder to be accurate and realistic. I'd recommend some kind of "informant" characters that help you get the low down on what your targets are doing.
If you wanted to try and make it I'd recommend looking in to these few aspects first, just to see if you have the abilities:
* Rendering (large?) cities
* Rendering and controlling a populace (both walking, driving)
* Relatively advanced AI (the cops, maybe FBI taskforce people? and the other assassins)
Because once you have those things in place and working you'll actually have a basic version of your game.
Also.. it's lair, not layer :).
Hope that's been a bit of help.
If you wanted to try and make it I'd recommend looking in to these few aspects first, just to see if you have the abilities:
* Rendering (large?) cities
* Rendering and controlling a populace (both walking, driving)
* Relatively advanced AI (the cops, maybe FBI taskforce people? and the other assassins)
Because once you have those things in place and working you'll actually have a basic version of your game.
Also.. it's lair, not layer :).
Hope that's been a bit of help.
The idea is fine
Given that developing the graphics is just typing (eg. not really a creative endeavour) what is the real challenge in a game like this?
IMO it is designing gameplay that is actually interesting and doesn't boil down to fundamentally boring mental activities and farcical details.
You could prototype something in Unity in a couple of days and then keep working on the gameplay till it works.
Given that developing the graphics is just typing (eg. not really a creative endeavour) what is the real challenge in a game like this?
IMO it is designing gameplay that is actually interesting and doesn't boil down to fundamentally boring mental activities and farcical details.
You could prototype something in Unity in a couple of days and then keep working on the gameplay till it works.
Man, I had the exact same idea some time ago.
I thought of living in hotels or abandoned buildings, tapping phones, eliminating evidence and witnesses, making it look like an accident, police chasing you, changing identity, hacking, etc.
The problem was that a game of this scale is beyond what I can do.
I thought of living in hotels or abandoned buildings, tapping phones, eliminating evidence and witnesses, making it look like an accident, police chasing you, changing identity, hacking, etc.
The problem was that a game of this scale is beyond what I can do.
Quote:Original post by Wai
It sounds perverted. I think in general, the desire to see things explode or gets destroyed, it may be a type of perversion. Why should it be okay to feel entertained when something is damaged, destroyed, or killed? The mindset is promoted and accepted widely regardless.
You can't be serious about that... Why should it not be ok? You watch action movies and thrillers right?
Games are perverted. They're what you attend to when you want your inner aggressions relieved.
Every healthy person has sadistic thoughts, and games allow you to do just that while having fun.
Maybe we're all just perverts?
... I really think your average post is better than this one! :)
Don't be this guy.
As of the idea, it sounds like all the best of hitman and gta in an rpg mix,
but i wouldn't as much call it an idea over than the description of an ideal modern assassin game. If you want to realize it, you can mod GTA San andreas with MTA through LUA.
But I'd wait with adding multiplayer. Seems a lot of people would need syncing.
Have you checked upcoming Subversion from introversion? It looks good so far, i think!
I enjoy sneaker games such as hitman, MGS and thief. Gives the mind something to work with more than pray'n'spray FPS shooters.
Other than that, good luck with the project!
Re: SuperVGA
I was prompted by another thread where I was thinking about the moral role of escapism in games. So I guess unfortunately, I am sort of serious, but more in the sense of exploring a thought, which is different from an activist who has committed to legislation.
I am not saying that certain games should be banned. I think there is a pretty big gap between knowing what something mean to knowing what is right, then another gap between knowing what is right to having a law about it. I am just express a thought about the first type: the meaning of the design. I was saying that the design sounds sadistic, but I haven't connected that to the conclusion that it is bad, which doesn't seem like a trivial connection at first glance, so I am not going there.
In terms of the meaning, I think these are the main observations:
1: You would prefer cure over relief if it exists
If a person has inner agression that needs to be relieved, then the person has excessive agression. If you think of it has a problem, a relief is a treatment to the symptoms, but not the cure itself. What is the cure? Why can't they just be agressive when the situation demands? What is the source of this excess?
2: When the mean means more than the end
For some games related to criminal activities, if the player performs the same acts in real life, the player would go to jail. In real life, a person may do crimes for a variety of reasons. For example, a father who can't afford the surgery for his son takes hostage the hospital. In this scenario, the crime is a mean for survival (of his son). In a game, this type of reason is mainly replaced by entertainment, where the story serves as an excuse to make it ok for the behavior. The comparison:
Father: I did what I did to save my son. If I don't do that, my son will die.
Player: I did what I did because it is fun. If I don't do it I will be bored.
If both people acted in real life, the player would be considered a psychopath (I am not saying that crimes in real life can't have psychopathic reason or are excusable). But what if the act is done in a virtual world (i.e. in a game)? In this case, the player and the psychopath still share the motivation, the only difference is that the player doesn't act out desires in real life. How you could explore why they don't act out the desires in real life. The two main reasons are probably:
1) The player knows that it is morally wrong in real life.
2) The player is afraid of punishment in real life.
For Reason 1, in our context, because the player chooses to play the game, the player actively seeks an avenue to exercise immorality. If a person knows that something is wrong but fantasizes doing it, then the most probably explanations are:
3) The person tries to be moral, but succumbs to the desire.
4) The person is not trying to be moral. (i.e. the person is immoral.)
Reason 3 sounds like addiction. In the context of the original post, no one is born with the specific desire to stack and assassinate people (as compared to the general desires to hunt or to compete). This particular mode of aggression is learned, and becomes a desire in the player for a variety of reasons. Such as:
5) The player saw an image and learned an unintended value.
6) The media presented the image with a value the media assigns.
Perhaps Reason 5 is called mal-imprinting, like how ducklings identify the first thing as mom. It occurs most often for a viewer who doesn't know the intended value of the image. Compare the experience of two viewers who see bombing in a war movie:
Viewer A: It was such a hard time. It was horrible. I wish people who see this will understand how horrible it is so that it will not happen again.
Viewer B: This movie is so famous, it must have awesome things in it. *Bomb drops* It is so loud! It is so scary! But I must not be afraid if I want to be awesome. I must learn and accept what is awesome. Bombing makes this movie awesome. Bombing is good.
In retrospect, I was Viewer B, but that ended some decade ago for an unknown reason. Things that I considered awesome became uninteresting, that inclues action movies, thrillers, and even fantasy. But back to the topic, there is a big difference between movies and games:
While a person who views a war movie may do so with willingness to understand a perspective, a person who plays a war game must also have the willingness to take the role of the game character. A movie about a killer is fundamentally different from a game where the play plays as a killer. To play such a game the player actively wants the experience as a killer, not just an observer at arm's length.
Say you watch a fictional account about killing. It is one thing to say that it is meaningful or thought provoking, it is quite another thing to say that it is entertaining or enjoyable. Even in this case, it would be understandable to say that people who enjoy the documentary are sadistic (I didn't think of this word so I said pervert). In a game, the required cognitive acceptance is even higher, the player must be even more sadistic to be playing the game.
This has nothing to do with the age or maturity of the player, because it is rooted in the intention. This also is not a disregard of professions that do kill people as a profession. This goes back to the Father vs Player comparison above.
Take a policeman who shoots and kills a suspect. In the ideal description of the intention, the policeman shoots because the situation requires the use of deadly force. He is fulfilling a duty. He may be trained to make quick decision during such scenarios using a virtual gaming environment. The game to him is a training asset. Is it okay if the policeman say he enjoys it when he gets to shoot at suspects? Compare the thoughts:
a) I shot someone, but that is what I must do at the situation.
b) It is so rare that I get to shoot people. I wish that I get to do that more often because it feels awesome.
When you observe the intention of a player playing as a policeman shooting at criminals, I think you would agree that b is the more pervalent. And that goes for most of the portrays of heros and superheros. The majority of the players aren't attracted to doing the right thing, but to the agression that the game excuses.
"To do the right thing" and "To kill bad guys" are two different desires. When the mean becomes the end, people play those games.
I was prompted by another thread where I was thinking about the moral role of escapism in games. So I guess unfortunately, I am sort of serious, but more in the sense of exploring a thought, which is different from an activist who has committed to legislation.
I am not saying that certain games should be banned. I think there is a pretty big gap between knowing what something mean to knowing what is right, then another gap between knowing what is right to having a law about it. I am just express a thought about the first type: the meaning of the design. I was saying that the design sounds sadistic, but I haven't connected that to the conclusion that it is bad, which doesn't seem like a trivial connection at first glance, so I am not going there.
In terms of the meaning, I think these are the main observations:
1: You would prefer cure over relief if it exists
If a person has inner agression that needs to be relieved, then the person has excessive agression. If you think of it has a problem, a relief is a treatment to the symptoms, but not the cure itself. What is the cure? Why can't they just be agressive when the situation demands? What is the source of this excess?
2: When the mean means more than the end
For some games related to criminal activities, if the player performs the same acts in real life, the player would go to jail. In real life, a person may do crimes for a variety of reasons. For example, a father who can't afford the surgery for his son takes hostage the hospital. In this scenario, the crime is a mean for survival (of his son). In a game, this type of reason is mainly replaced by entertainment, where the story serves as an excuse to make it ok for the behavior. The comparison:
Father: I did what I did to save my son. If I don't do that, my son will die.
Player: I did what I did because it is fun. If I don't do it I will be bored.
If both people acted in real life, the player would be considered a psychopath (I am not saying that crimes in real life can't have psychopathic reason or are excusable). But what if the act is done in a virtual world (i.e. in a game)? In this case, the player and the psychopath still share the motivation, the only difference is that the player doesn't act out desires in real life. How you could explore why they don't act out the desires in real life. The two main reasons are probably:
1) The player knows that it is morally wrong in real life.
2) The player is afraid of punishment in real life.
For Reason 1, in our context, because the player chooses to play the game, the player actively seeks an avenue to exercise immorality. If a person knows that something is wrong but fantasizes doing it, then the most probably explanations are:
3) The person tries to be moral, but succumbs to the desire.
4) The person is not trying to be moral. (i.e. the person is immoral.)
Reason 3 sounds like addiction. In the context of the original post, no one is born with the specific desire to stack and assassinate people (as compared to the general desires to hunt or to compete). This particular mode of aggression is learned, and becomes a desire in the player for a variety of reasons. Such as:
5) The player saw an image and learned an unintended value.
6) The media presented the image with a value the media assigns.
Perhaps Reason 5 is called mal-imprinting, like how ducklings identify the first thing as mom. It occurs most often for a viewer who doesn't know the intended value of the image. Compare the experience of two viewers who see bombing in a war movie:
Viewer A: It was such a hard time. It was horrible. I wish people who see this will understand how horrible it is so that it will not happen again.
Viewer B: This movie is so famous, it must have awesome things in it. *Bomb drops* It is so loud! It is so scary! But I must not be afraid if I want to be awesome. I must learn and accept what is awesome. Bombing makes this movie awesome. Bombing is good.
In retrospect, I was Viewer B, but that ended some decade ago for an unknown reason. Things that I considered awesome became uninteresting, that inclues action movies, thrillers, and even fantasy. But back to the topic, there is a big difference between movies and games:
While a person who views a war movie may do so with willingness to understand a perspective, a person who plays a war game must also have the willingness to take the role of the game character. A movie about a killer is fundamentally different from a game where the play plays as a killer. To play such a game the player actively wants the experience as a killer, not just an observer at arm's length.
Say you watch a fictional account about killing. It is one thing to say that it is meaningful or thought provoking, it is quite another thing to say that it is entertaining or enjoyable. Even in this case, it would be understandable to say that people who enjoy the documentary are sadistic (I didn't think of this word so I said pervert). In a game, the required cognitive acceptance is even higher, the player must be even more sadistic to be playing the game.
This has nothing to do with the age or maturity of the player, because it is rooted in the intention. This also is not a disregard of professions that do kill people as a profession. This goes back to the Father vs Player comparison above.
Take a policeman who shoots and kills a suspect. In the ideal description of the intention, the policeman shoots because the situation requires the use of deadly force. He is fulfilling a duty. He may be trained to make quick decision during such scenarios using a virtual gaming environment. The game to him is a training asset. Is it okay if the policeman say he enjoys it when he gets to shoot at suspects? Compare the thoughts:
a) I shot someone, but that is what I must do at the situation.
b) It is so rare that I get to shoot people. I wish that I get to do that more often because it feels awesome.
When you observe the intention of a player playing as a policeman shooting at criminals, I think you would agree that b is the more pervalent. And that goes for most of the portrays of heros and superheros. The majority of the players aren't attracted to doing the right thing, but to the agression that the game excuses.
"To do the right thing" and "To kill bad guys" are two different desires. When the mean becomes the end, people play those games.
Quote:Original post by Wai
I was prompted by another thread where I was thinking about the moral role of escapism in games. So I guess unfortunately, I am sort of serious, but more in the sense of exploring a thought, which is different from an activist who has committed to legislation.
I am not saying that certain games should be banned. I think there is a pretty big gap between knowing what something mean to knowing what is right, then another gap between knowing what is right to having a law about it.
Yes, I know you wouldn't say that, either. That was more like a joke, because he's like an extremist in that matter. Sorry if it seemed like an insult.
Quote:Original post by Wai
1: You would prefer cure over relief if it exists
If a person has inner agression that needs to be relieved, then the person has excessive agression. If you think of it has a problem, a relief is a treatment to the symptoms, but not the cure itself. What is the cure? Why can't they just be agressive when the situation demands? What is the source of this excess?
Yes, I would if i knew of one. But with regards to the source of excess:
IANAP, but i think it's normal for a person with self-control to accumulate aggression. I'd say that is the source of the excess. Also, I think too little physical exercise and sleep can cause increased aggressions.
Quote:Original post by Wai
2: When the mean means more than the end
For some games related to criminal activities, if the player performs the same acts in real life, the player would go to jail. In real life, a person may do crimes for a variety of reasons. For example, a father who can't afford the surgery for his son takes hostage the hospital. In this scenario, the crime is a mean for survival (of his son). In a game, this type of reason is mainly replaced by entertainment, where the story serves as an excuse to make it ok for the behavior. The comparison:
Father: I did what I did to save my son. If I don't do that, my son will die.
Player: I did what I did because it is fun. If I don't do it I will be bored.
I'm not sure about "mainly". I think it's normal that games attempt to create a realistic setting for the violence, making it look like the actions of the lead character is based on reason.
The thing is, you'd always see players shooting at dead bodies of terrorists or police who they just killed (in a scenario where they may even be killing for "good means")
I think that sort of overkill is very typical, and i agree: It's mostly because there's no enemies left, and the round is not ending yet, so i just aim for the dead guys head, or spray paint on him. Very much what you said.
There are definitely games that gives the player the power to hurt purely for the entertainment (no story involved, but the player has to hurt to progress), but I'm not sure i can think of one...
Quote:Original post by Wai
How you could explore why they don't act out the desires in real life. The two main reasons are probably:
1) The player knows that it is morally wrong in real life.
2) The player is afraid of punishment in real life.
For Reason 1, in our context, because the player chooses to play the game, the player actively seeks an avenue to exercise immorality. If a person knows that something is wrong but fantasizes doing it, then the most probably explanations are:
3) The person tries to be moral, but succumbs to the desire.
I'm sure this is perfectly natural, though.
Quote:Original post by Wai
4) The person is not trying to be moral. (i.e. the person is immoral.)
In this case, the game wouldn't be the reason of the immoral player
Quote:Original post by Wai
Reason 3 sounds like addiction. In the context of the original post, no one is born with the specific desire to stack and assassinate people (as compared to the general desires to hunt or to compete).
You don't think so? Maybe it happens as they pass puberty...?
Its suppressed, yes. But that doesn't mean they aren't there. You never-ever thought about hurting anyone you hated? Somebody who you just had an argument with?
Quote:Original post by Wai
This particular mode of aggression is learned, and becomes a desire in the player for a variety of reasons. Such as:
5) The player saw an image and learned an unintended value.
6) The media presented the image with a value the media assigns.
Perhaps Reason 5 is called mal-imprinting, like how ducklings identify the first thing as mom. It occurs most often for a viewer who doesn't know the intended value of the image. Compare the experience of two viewers who see bombing in a war movie:
Viewer A: It was such a hard time. It was horrible. I wish people who see this will understand how horrible it is so that it will not happen again.
Viewer B: This movie is so famous, it must have awesome things in it. *Bomb drops* It is so loud! It is so scary! But I must not be afraid if I want to be awesome. I must learn and accept what is awesome. Bombing makes this movie awesome. Bombing is good.
That must not be a very good movie, with just two viewers. A viewer C is in order :)
Viewer C: Those effects are good, and the plot is great. The story is about something horrible, but the presentation of the movie is exciting. Good thing we don't have war here at home. War is bad.
Quote:Original post by Wai
Things that I considered awesome became uninteresting, that inclues action movies, thrillers, and even fantasy.
Yeah, me too. Sometimes it happens i enjoy movies, though. I think both Die Hard 1 and Terminator 2 are great even though the plot and acting can be considered hilarious.
Still exciting and atmospheric every time, those oldies! :)
Quote:Original post by Wai
A movie about a killer is fundamentally different from a game where the play plays as a killer. To play such a game the player actively wants the experience as a killer, not just an observer at arm's length.
Although that is one difference, it's still worth noting that people capable of reasoning
will add an invisible barrier, in the know that it's not real life. It's still entertainment.
Quote:Original post by Wai
Say you watch a fictional account about killing. It is one thing to say that it is meaningful or thought provoking, it is quite another thing to say that it is entertaining or enjoyable. Even in this case, it would be understandable to say that people who enjoy the documentary are sadistic
Well, if it's fictional it's not a documentary. In my opinion that's a big difference.
Maybe you didn't intend to comment on both at once, but I'm pretty sure we can agree that there's a difference here, right? Naturally, a reconstruction of a wretched incident shouldn't be enjoyable.
Quote:Original post by Wai
Take a policeman who shoots and kills a suspect. In the ideal description of the intention, the policeman shoots because the situation requires the use of deadly force. He is fulfilling a duty. He may be trained to make quick decision during such scenarios using a virtual gaming environment. The game to him is a training asset. Is it okay if the policeman say he enjoys it when he gets to shoot at suspects? Compare the thoughts:
a) I shot someone, but that is what I must do at the situation.
b) It is so rare that I get to shoot people. I wish that I get to do that more often because it feels awesome.
When you observe the intention of a player playing as a policeman shooting at criminals, I think you would agree that b is the more pervalent.
Naturally, there are players that don't immerse into the story well enough. Maybe that is the sort of player you talk about. A "serious" player playing a good cop will play a good cop. Dealing bullets to the "bad guys" only, regardless of the feeling, but that may be set by the mood in the game.
Quote:Original post by Wai
The majority of the players aren't attracted to doing the right thing, but to the agression that the game excuses.
Ok, I didn't know that.
I see some of your points, but as you called the "idea" "sadistic", it just sounded like you thought the game would be bad somehow. Sadistic is after all a negative word.
I immerse myself into a game of Hitman, wherein I'm aware that Agent 47 is a cold-blooded killer. I don't want to be him, but I want the story and the atmosphere.
My sneak-and-attack instincts dating back to where my mommy was a cat and my father was a wolf (or something like that) makes me wanna play it.
It's nice to feel superior in planning and stealth. When the bomb-rigged car blows up just in front of the party with my target, I feel happy because I managed to solve a puzzle.
It doesn't necessarily give me a kick because i like to hurt people.
Ok, that was better suited for an IM conversion. Sorry Gamedev and OP, for infesting your thread with this somewhat unrelated conversion.
[Edited by - SuperVGA on December 5, 2010 6:41:01 AM]
Author
On the issue of perversion, I agree 100% with the idea that it's a perversion. And to be completely honest, I'm drawn to video games that allow me to express my deeper perversions. I'm interested in making games that express even deeper preversions yet, such as world domination. but alas these are all aspects of human identity and happen to be accepted by circles of our society. Just ask your girlfriend if she approves or looks on with acceptance when you're hacking up virtual enemies. Generally your significant other will scoof at your immaturity.
But again, the video game market is allowing older and older men to live out their immature fantasies and perversions.
Would I rather not associate myself with the game world at all, if there was something better to do with my time then heck yes, but unfortunately I'm bored a lot and get a kick out stupid little immature games.
Should children be expossed to some of these gaming ideas, ABSOLUTLY NOT, should young and older men be marketed on for the advance of their own individual perversions, why not. Their making money off of drugs, sex and a lot of other societal perversions, make a buck off us too. And we'll have fun while they make their money.
But again, the video game market is allowing older and older men to live out their immature fantasies and perversions.
Would I rather not associate myself with the game world at all, if there was something better to do with my time then heck yes, but unfortunately I'm bored a lot and get a kick out stupid little immature games.
Should children be expossed to some of these gaming ideas, ABSOLUTLY NOT, should young and older men be marketed on for the advance of their own individual perversions, why not. Their making money off of drugs, sex and a lot of other societal perversions, make a buck off us too. And we'll have fun while they make their money.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
