38 replies to this topic

[greywolf]

Being tired of the deadness and all, I figured I'd ask you all what your perfect game would be.

Mine would be along the lines of a pen and paper (pnp) RPG, shipping with a default campaign, and allowing for user-made addons and campaigns as well. In fact, the use of mods would be encouraged, and would probably be built into an updating system that would regularly scan a database for high-quality mods, addons, and campaigns (based on a user rating system or something), and then present these to you for approval.

I love the freedom pnp RPGs give. Having a comprehensive skill system (like the Star Wars D20 RPG), or basic skills with specialties (like the Serenity RPG), or even another system entirely would definitely bring far more freedom to a game. Every object would be usable, with tags pertaining to skills attatched to them for greater depth of interaction. While for a wooden bucket, you might only see the options "Pick up," "Throw," and "Fill with object" (meaning anything that can fit inside it, like water), if you had a Carpentry skill, you would also see the option "Dismantle." Dismantling it would then give you the objects it was made out of: wood, nails, and a piece of rope. This general idea can be applied to all world objects, and when you get into stuff like smithing, multiple object could interact with each other as well, adding even more complexity.

The inclusion of NPC AI akin to conversation bots like ALICE that would also randomly choose from a personality list, complicated by randomly assigned professions that would affect their interests and relations with the player would in and of itself give far more depth to the game than any other RPG currently out there. Combine that with (fairly) dynamic side quests (that can also be written and modded in by users), and you have an incredible game on your hands.

Part of the experience would also be developing your character; after finishing one campaign and defeating an evil wizard (or baron), you could move onto the next story arc with the same character.

Pnp RPGs give total and utter freedom; the goal of the game engine would be to supply the basics for that, and provide a few examples of what you could do, but the greatest part would be the user-added content, as I mentioned before.

Anyway, that's my dream game. What's yours?

[Blood-Pigggy]

Mine is already being made, Mortal Kombat: Armageddon for the Wii, lol.

[Potatoe]

Greywolf, ever heard of Neverwinter Nights. It fits your description nearly perfectly.

Mine would be Modern: Total War(starting from the first world war) and spanning all the way to the not too far in to the future. The game would have all the features of Hearts of Iron and the Total War, except to fit the way of combat in modern times. And you could choose if you would start as a revolution, and you would have to bring the revolution out yourself, and lot's of action-packed combat.

[greywolf]

I've only heard vague stuff about Neverwinter Nights, and that it was really long. I'll definitely look into it, though.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Potatoe, on Apr 10 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Greywolf, ever heard of Neverwinter Nights. It fits your description nearly perfectly.

Mine would be Modern: Total War(starting from the first world war) and spanning all the way to the not too far in to the future. The game would have all the features of Hearts of Iron and the Total War, except to fit the way of combat in modern times. And you could choose if you would start as a revolution, and you would have to bring the revolution out yourself, and lot's of action-packed combat.

There's a mod for Company Of Heroes that sounds kind of like this, except for the future part and it takes place in World War 2, but it's kinda close so whatever, it's an interesting internet client integrated into the game that gives you a personal company you name, you get soldiers that go from battle to battle, and you fight on an active territorial front. I believe it's called Europe In Ruins or something to that effect.

[BeefontheBone]

I got NWN2 the other day, and it's not half bad. There's some good user-made content out there too apparently. It is, however, an extremely faithful recreation of D&D, complete with all the needless complication that brings, and a lot of that is not documented in-game (for instance, how does "Critical Hit x2" differ from "Critical Hit 19-20/x2"?)

[Juni Ori]

Actually mine would be kind of similar to what Potatoe described. Not necessarily with Total War combats, as it would make the game far too long. There are few things I'd like to fix in HoI2, for example provinces and their owning. It's rather silly how armies move between the provinces and most annoyingly of it how they withdraw to other province, no matter how strong friendly army would counterattack and turn the tide. At worst slow stacks take month or so to move back and forth the provinces. Far better would be freely moving borders and cities you'd fight for. There's also a lot of stuff missing from otherwise so great, or better said revolutionary game. One of the weirdest things is that you can't destroy installations, factories etc... And after days of strategic bombing, ruining totally provinces industrial output, they get back in far too short period. If something is carpet bombed to dust, it doesn't sound reasonable they are quickly back online. Also the logistics is done really left-handedly. Bridges, build or demolish, would also be nice additional feature. So many flaws in so great game... Well, one day, I hope, one day there will finally be a strategy game fulfilling my dreams...

[Potatoe]

Blood-Pigggy, on Apr 10 2007, 10:15 PM, said:

Potatoe, on Apr 10 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Greywolf, ever heard of Neverwinter Nights. It fits your description nearly perfectly.

Mine would be Modern: Total War(starting from the first world war) and spanning all the way to the not too far in to the future. The game would have all the features of Hearts of Iron and the Total War, except to fit the way of combat in modern times. And you could choose if you would start as a revolution, and you would have to bring the revolution out yourself, and lot's of action-packed combat.

There's a mod for Company Of Heroes that sounds kind of like this, except for the future part and it takes place in World War 2, but it's kinda close so whatever, it's an interesting internet client integrated into the game that gives you a personal company you name, you get soldiers that go from battle to battle, and you fight on an active territorial front. I believe it's called Europe In Ruins or something to that effect.

Close, but it seems to be lacking one of the most important features.. Diplomacy.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Potatoe, on Apr 14 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

Blood-Pigggy, on Apr 10 2007, 10:15 PM, said:

Potatoe, on Apr 10 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Greywolf, ever heard of Neverwinter Nights. It fits your description nearly perfectly.

Mine would be Modern: Total War(starting from the first world war) and spanning all the way to the not too far in to the future. The game would have all the features of Hearts of Iron and the Total War, except to fit the way of combat in modern times. And you could choose if you would start as a revolution, and you would have to bring the revolution out yourself, and lot's of action-packed combat.

There's a mod for Company Of Heroes that sounds kind of like this, except for the future part and it takes place in World War 2, but it's kinda close so whatever, it's an interesting internet client integrated into the game that gives you a personal company you name, you get soldiers that go from battle to battle, and you fight on an active territorial front. I believe it's called Europe In Ruins or something to that effect.

Close, but it seems to be lacking one of the most important features.. Diplomacy.

Yeah, but that's proven to make a game hideously boring.

[Juni Ori]

Depends on what you like and how well it is done. Best diplomacies I've seen in games are interestingly done and have depth. Then they can be veeery interesting - if you have any interest in diplomatics at all.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Today's AI is too retarded to make it fun.

[Juni Ori]

Fine.

[Potatoe]

And in my game tanks should kill infantry easily. Not needing like 10 shots to kill a single infantry unit.

[greywolf]

I think tanks kill infantry units in single shots anyway. Unless you're talking about the mounted machine gun, in which case you would have to apply that to all guns. If what you're going for is realism, then you'd have essentially have a 1-shot 1-kill type game.

[Potatoe]

greywolf, on Apr 15 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

I think tanks kill infantry units in single shots anyway. Unless you're talking about the mounted machine gun, in which case you would have to apply that to all guns. If what you're going for is realism, then you'd have essentially have a 1-shot 1-kill type game.

No but seriously, it's useless to build tanks in most games since basic infantry+anti tank infantry= ownage.