If You Could Design A Game - How Would It Be?

[TETurkhan]

Many of us have played all kinds of games over the years. Some good, some bad and many in between that had great potential but fell short.

IF you could put together a strategy based game, along the lines of the best you have ever played how would it be?

• List games that you have most enjoyed, and what elements of each you would combine into the one game.

That’s it!

 

[mazzz]

Ive recently (2/3 years) been playing these kinds of games

i liked how ctp2 had alot of agreements llike two nations agree to destroy 5% of thier nukes. but these were poorly used in the good and half the time did not work. I remeber in one of the ctp games playing a mod with more than one type of peace treaty, one for 20 turns, 40, or permanent one (which still could be broken )

a variety of units and improvment are good to, but not to many where if you build a city in the modern age it will take forever to bulid everything you need in it.

Civ3 has had alot less deals between civs than the ctp games but atleast the civ3 deal work

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: This isn't quite civ-based, so I'm moving it to the Other Games forum. A toss-up between that, and OT, but it's more game-related.

Anyway, on the topic of making strategy games, I think that's kind of broad, and they fall into 2 main categories. (You know, I could write a thesis on this if I wanted... Why aren't there any good game making college courses in Baltimore? But, I'll try to keep it short.)

RTS - Real Time Strategy (geared more towards MP)
TBS - Turn Based Strategy (geared more towards SP)

Most strategies are war-based strategies. (Civilization, Stratego, War/Starcaft) that usually follow a basic path:

"Collect resources. Build units".

Some games don't collect resources, since you start off with preset units (sort of like Stratego or Chess.). A game like Civ3, or Age of Empires adds a trade and diplomacy element to strategy, which I think works better in a turn-based environment. That is because the time element tends to move too quickly in a RTS game. In a TBS, you are able to plan ahead.

The idea of "design" itself is rather broad, without a well thought out plan of what you want to do. If you want to use the SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), you can add 3 steps prior, the first being your main idea of the game. (i.e., "I want to create a game that does XYZ). Second is feasibility, which would deal with the time you think it would require to make such a game, and the resources needed. (This is why most companies just don't accept any/all game proposals/solicitations). Making a game costs a lot of money. Then there's "Analysis", what do you want the game to do? (Wants and Musts are the major parts of this. The "Wants" is also known as "The Wishlist"). To use an anology, take Civ3 for example. One feature might been a "Must", like culture. Then, figure out how culture will work before you actually design it. The next step is the design phase, where you start to draw up what the game will look like. I think this is the "prototype" phase, where they don't have the code yet, but its' close. It's putting your priorities together. That is, all of the musts, and a few, some, or all of the "wants". The "wants" are things that might be affected due to time. (any additions might be part of an expansion). Then comes the fun part! Coding, and Testing. Techincally, these are 2 seperate steps, but they go hand in hand. Write the code, then at about 90% through, have testers start to test the code. Then, it's getting it out into the market ("Implementation"), then "Maintenence", which is equal to "patches" in the gaming world.

So, what would be my ideal strategy game, and how would I make it? I don't know -- atleast nothing that I can write in 100% full detail in just 5 minutes. Maybe it's just my Software Analysis professor's voice etched in the back of my head (*shudders* - learned a LOT in that class! and it was intense, and hard, too!), but writing something in 5 minutes just doesn't seem normal... I'll try to come up with something.

 

[Perfection]

An interesting concept I had was "Destination: Space" The basic premise earth is massively overcrowded, and you're a nation that has either the choice to fight amongst the others for resources or start colonizing other worlds (within the solar system). In the beginning colonization is very expensive but provides a lot of rewards. As time and technology progresses things get more and more complex, especially dealing with property claims on other worlds. The goal is unifacation under you, but how it is done can be through many routes (Including diplomatic).

 

[Chieftess]

Ok, my post ended up being long, but here's a short paragraph on a game I had in mine -

"Fuedalism"

This would be played out on an isometric grid, which a map much like Civ3 (terrain, resources). There would be towns, cities and metros (you need X number of towns for a city, and X number of cities for a metro). You can also build outposts, barracks, forts, castles, and a palace (only 1 palace). Each military "improvement" produces a type of leader that has "leadership quality", and "loyalty". These affect the outcome of battles. Leaders can also hold a certain number of troops. (offense, defense, support, and bombard -- i.e., Knights, Foot Knights (Medival Infantry), Pikes, Longbows, and Trebuchets).

Each player starts off with an X number of tiles. Each tile, based on the terrain and resources, generate gold each turn. (grasslands generate 10, deserts and mountains might generate 2 for example). Each new terrain costs gold to purchase. If a terrain has a resouce, settlement (town/city/metro), the cost is added (and is much higher).

If you build an army (requires a palace), you must move all of your troops to the palace. An army has increases attack/defense, and movement. An army acts as one unit, and can have any number of units in it. Units can enter and leave the army if you want. If the player wishes to control the tile of an opposing player, they need troops to take it.

Here's a sample image (I just made up the graphics in PSP, and this board size was trimmed down). Red (it looks brown, but it's actually a transparent red) and Blue are the two "Kingdoms". Both have timber in their territory. They both pick up a small bonus gold (probably 1 extra gold). Something like iron, or gold, would yeild 10. A village yields 10, town yields 25, and city (not town, city, metro like I origanally said) makes 50. A Palace makes 200 (which is why you can only have 1). I may make something where you can trade borders in some way, but that's just a "want" and not a "must'. Red has an outpost, so they can produce a leader, and support extra troops. The leader of an outpost is a Mercenary (supports maybe 10 at the most). The leader of a castle would be a General, and could support 1,000 (or maybe 10,000). A palace doubles those numbers, and possibly doubles the loyalty.

 

[h4ppy]

I would make a game like Morrowind but with better graphics (everyone looks like they were just playing in the mud), better fighting system, and a different area with different races.

 

[The_Unforgiven]

@Chieftess
Why don't you write a thesis about it? Can't you squeeze the subject in another course? That's what I always try: Ow, this class is about social aspects of technology? I'll write about the social aspects of Nuclear Fusion then. Yah right, one chapter and then a book about the physiscs. Somehow, it always is highly appreciated... even though I kinda ignore the main purpose...
The CFC members will be happy to read over preliminary versions and take part in questionnaires and field research. HAS to be an A+

 

[.:KNAS:.]

I would make a RTS Warcraft type game. Only its in the modern days and without magic. Humans would have modern weapons, like the M4 or SA80 or AN94. Orcs would have swords and stuff like that but would be able to take alot more hits. Also they would be cheaper and faster to build. Then you would have the Undead, with old Nazi weapons running around shooting the place up with mp44's. But how would you get Undead and Orcs without magic? Well genetic engineering, mutations and all the wonders of modern science.

The idea needs working on but i would love to play such a game.

 

[puglover]

If I had the money and the time and the skills, I'd probably design my own MMORPG. New players start out as early humans. Only basic rules will be shown, like how to pick up objects and chat and stuff. The rest will be left for the players to discover themselves. To survive, players would have to make their characters hunt and forage and find shelter. Soon players would discover how to make tools out of stones and vines, and then using the tools would discover how to farm. The course of the game would be determined by the players themselves. Players would have to make clans and alliances in order to survive. They would discover new ways to use their enviroment to their own will. After a while, alliances and clans would make wars and form communities and nations.

Overall, it would be like a cross between the Sims, and one of GenghisKhan's MMORPG's.

 

[Dann]

If You Could Design A Game - How Would It Be?

Giant Hentai RPG with hundreds of girls. And you, as the player character, can get to do er, things with each and every one of them if you're good enough.

Seriously though I do have other, more constructive ideas but am still composing them.