Create your dream game!

[gay_Aleks]

What about Kingdom of Loathing? It's a browser game, and it's pretty immersive (but with stick-men graphics) and you can choose your adventure (although, there IS a main story line, that you gotta do).

 

[Ajidica]

The main problem with most game software companies by now is that they are way too much about franchises/profit and very little about creativity. I suppose this was brought largely by the monopoly of the PC since the early 90s, cause prior to that most computer game companies were smallish but highly prolific and artistic, and the games from that era reflect that (not much chance there will be a nea 'Another World' ever gaining momentum).

Not so sure why you view game developers/publishers maintaining a franchise a being a bad thing. Despite being part of a famous and well established franchise, Skyrim was a very innovative game -notably with the Radiant AI system- but also with the complete overhaul of the skill and stat system inherited from Morrowind.
Sure, some franchises have become very dull, but even within them there are some very interesting things. (According to my roommate the Battlefield multiplayer system has made a lot of very good and interesting changes.)

The internet obviously also changed things. For starters virtually all strategy games produced in dvd form are now 3d-engine based, while freeware online/opesource strategy games tend to be 2d/2,5d.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with a 3d engine for strategy games? Technically, anything a 2d engine can do, a 3d engine can do -often better- and with more options.
I'm no stranger to 2d strategy games, yet with one exception (Disciples II, if you are interested due to the abomination that was Disciples III) I feel the game would have been better had a relatively modern 3d engine been available.

For computer games, I would love to see an RPG in which I really feel like my character is a driving force in the developing story. I want the world and characters around me to be reacting to me, and it's not just me reacting to them. For the most part, when I play RPGs I feel like I'm just being told a story, not making choices that effect the plot, the setting or the characters.

Have you tried Alpha Protocol? If you can look past a poor combat system and an ugly/uninspired art direction you get a rather neat story where you do feel like you are controlling it. Also, most of the bugs have been fixed so you no longer get the infamous 'screwed her brains out' bug.*
Also, although you say you aren't a fan of swords-and-sorcery RPGs, I do highly recommend The Witcher if you like the story-based RPG in a very interesting setting.
Lastly, if you are more interested in an inventive setting than driving the plot, you might be interested in Geneforge (mages have discovered genetics and use it to create fantastic monsters to serve them) or Avernum (criminals and outcasts are sent to a gigantic series of underground caves where they scrape by).

*There was one romantic encounter in the game where if you chose a certain set of dialogue options, you would get stuck in a loop where she would endlessly repeat the exact same dialogue over and over and over.


@Gori: That sounds a lot like a simulator game, have you tried Mount and Blade?


EDIT: Interesting article on the 'indie bubble' by Jeff Vogel. (The guy behind Spiderweb Software, which produces ultra-low budget text heavy RPGs that make the original Baldur's Gate look graphically advanced.)
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Jeff..._Luck_and_the_Popping_of_the_Indie_Bubble.php
tl,dr: There are so many indie games out on the market they are encountering the law of supply and demand and are selling their games at a super low price, often earning less than a dollar as profit and creating a state of affairs that ultimately can't last.

 

[Mouthwash]

One of them was Spore with an emphasis on science instead of cuteness, and with actual depth.

 

[BvBPL]

The main problem with most game software companies by now is that they are way too much about franchises/profit and very little about creativity.

Lately there has been a rise in independent developers. I’d say that now the problem with these game producers, which by numbers probably exceed those of traditional developers, is a lack of polish rather than creativity. Many of these games just throw every idea the developers have ever had at the players. These independent developers would be well served by making sure the game is good ahead of making sure the game is creative. There’s little purpose in breaking new ground if the resulting product is broken.

Your critique is certainly valid for a number of traditional mass market video game producers.

It is notably that most commentators here immediately jumped to thinking of video games, as opposed to any other type of game. Only two of us jumped to sports and no one has yet mentioned board, card, party, gambling, or other types of games. Notable, but not surprising.

To break that trend, I dream of a 4th Edition D&D that somehow, magically, doesn't engender unnecessary and silly hate from gonards.

What about Kingdom of Loathing? It's a browser game, and it's pretty immersive (but with stick-men graphics) and you can choose your adventure (although, there IS a main story line, that you gotta do).

I am player id #1629632 in the Kingdom. If anyone from this board tries this fantastic, fantastic game, please drop me a line and I’ll hook you up.

 

[Mouthwash]

I am player id #1629632 in the Kingdom. If anyone from this board tries this fantastic, fantastic game, please drop me a line and I’ll hook you up.

I just made an account. It looks insane and lazy and I can't figure out what I should be enjoying.

 

[BvBPL]

Start with the jokes.

Edit: I don't mean to be flippant. The humor of the game is so important that if you are not amused by the jokes then it may not be the game for you. The game is written by 30 something Americans and its humor is most clearly aimed at that demographic. I've found that people younger and older than that demographic don't always get the jokes.

Which is not to say that the other things in the game aren't worthwhile on their own, just that the humor is paramount.

 

[T C]

A modern version of Frontier:elite 2 that has combat and isn't just a flight simulator like Pioneer.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What?

 

[Perfection]

Okay so you have a 3x3 grid, and you and your opponent take turns taking squares. First one to three in a row wins.

 

[BvBPL]

Only if it also involves asking Alf, Whoopi Goldberg, and other moderately famous televisions personalities trivia questions and then deciding whether or not I agree with them.

 

[bhsup]

Okay so you have a 3x3 grid, and you and your opponent take turns taking squares. First one to three in a row wins.

The only winning move is not to play.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It is notably that most commentators here immediately jumped to thinking of video games, as opposed to any other type of game. Only two of us jumped to sports and no one has yet mentioned board, card, party, gambling, or other types of games. Notable, but not surprising.

Oh, my ideal card game already exists: Fluxx.

And, similarly, GURPS is adequate to my pen-n-paper RPG needs.

and @Perfection and bhsup: there's a great tic-tac-toe-like game that is winnable by either player. It's called Order and Chaos and appeared in Games Magazine decades ago. Simple rules but engaging play.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

Remarkably, we are in a nadir of computer games. This game is for that system only. That game on your system is not the same as his version on the other system.

First Person Shooters and strategy games dominate, I prefer shooters from with the "God's-eye view."

But, having ranted, let me address the OP.

Currently, there is no good naval warfare game. I miss Silent Service II and Red Storm Rising. My only original idea is that there ought to be a game based on firefighting. I could imagine a game about brushfires where you could replay historic fires. It would have realistic effects for wind, weather and smoke and the never-ending lack of resources.

An urban firefighting game could be first-person or map-view. It would allow you to use historic, or modern equipment. If you wanted something huge, you could integrate it with some massive New Vegas sort of city requiring the player to manage a number of units to cover the city.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I could imagine a game about brushfires where you could replay historic fires. It would have realistic effects for wind, weather and smoke and the never-ending lack of resources.

Why has this not been done yet?

On another note, I'm pretty sure there's a Firefighter Simulator 20XX out there.

 

[Quackers]

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of time has already been made guise.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Ajidica:

The issue with a full 3d engine for a strategy game (and even moreso a turn-based one or a hybrid) is that 3d graphics actually do not function in the same manner as a 2d render of a 3d model (which is by now the norm in 2d/2,5d games) does. In the latter you only have to care about the object looking good from a set angle (or at worst a few angles, if it is mobile). That means there are no skins and no issues of zoom in/out.
In the former you have to care about how the object looks from different angles and magnifications. This in turn makes it impossible to have any model look always great, since it would rely on the skins as much as in the actual polygon modelling it is made of. And depending on computer power (ram mostly, but also processing power) you can easily end up to have to use very low-polygon models, and focus on having excellent skins. Just look at civIV models of buildings, which are at most 1000 polygons each, while renders for 2d/2,5d usually are over 50.000 polygons for the same object.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yay for games which don't bother with this whole 3D or 2D business (EUIII and partly EUIV, I am looking at you!).

 

[Kyriakos]

^EUIII (and afaik indeed also EUIV) are featuring a 3d engine, but use only a few different angles (something like 45 degrees or less?). But their maps anyway don't have detailed objects. The EU series never was much about graphics, though, even in its 2d games (up to Victoria I).
Some mods of EUII (particularly the one which became a standalone game) had far better map graphics, and remained in 2d.

 

[gay_Aleks]

To be fair, most Grand Strategy games from Paradox aren't about graphics.

Now, Mount & Blade, that's different.

 

[Ajidica]

@Ajidica:

The issue with a full 3d engine for a strategy game (and even moreso a turn-based one or a hybrid) is that 3d graphics actually do not function in the same manner as a 2d render of a 3d model (which is by now the norm in 2d/2,5d games) does. In the latter you only have to care about the object looking good from a set angle (or at worst a few angles, if it is mobile). That means there are no skins and no issues of zoom in/out.
In the former you have to care about how the object looks from different angles and magnifications. This in turn makes it impossible to have any model look always great, since it would rely on the skins as much as in the actual polygon modelling it is made of. And depending on computer power (ram mostly, but also processing power) you can easily end up to have to use very low-polygon models, and focus on having excellent skins. Just look at civIV models of buildings, which are at most 1000 polygons each, while renders for 2d/2,5d usually are over 50.000 polygons for the same object.

I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at besides "3d graphics use more computing power than 2d and are more difficult to make", neither of which have any bearing on some staggeringly great 3d strategy games (GalCiv2, Rome: Total War, Civ4, etc).
Given the benefits with 3d engines such as scrolling (I would dread to have to play GalCiv2 if I couldn't scroll in an out), dynamic camera, and when done decently: easier at-a-glance
identification.

EDIT: I'm not saying using 2d graphics for a strategy game is bad or keeps it from being good. Rather, I'm just not getting how large strategy games today using exclusively 3d graphics is in any way a bad thing.