Gamesystem yet to be named

Game Play & Game Design
#1

Gamesystem yet to be named
(rough draft)

A little idea I had a while ago and developed further during my work with RMI.

Every game we play has what one might call a restricted environment.
In an TBS/RTS we can build buildings and units and send those units off to combat where they fight automatically. But not much else.
In RPGs you play a hero that goes out and battles monsters or a smith that creats the finest weapons. Again not much else.

But have you never wanted ‘more’?
Some people like games where you create stuff, be it items or colonies or complex production lines or sales management.
Lacking any alternatives these players would seek a game that gives them what they want in a restricted environment.
Sadly that person might just make the RTS or the RPG an even greater gaming experiance.

What is a space game ala Privateer where the ‘universe’ is undynamic beyond what the system can offer.

Someone likes to play squad based tactical games such as Jagged Alliance.
Again lacking alternatives he sticks to his restrictive environment.
Would such a player not love to command the units in an TBS/RTS?
Imagine the commander creating a new unit and then assigns that unit to a player who then can control it.

Two different gameplay types working together to offer a gaming experiance both will enjoy.
EvE online is one of the few online games that goes a little into the direction.
Unfortunetly they only offer one interface.

So this gamesystem[to be named] would allow players to have the gaming enjoyment in a living breathing world without having to play in a restricted environment.
1 world : n interfaces

[i]Example just how many different environments we could build out of something like Pirates:
RPG based character handling = you have a character you control.
You can become a captain, a merchant, a craftsman or anything else. (minor jobs)
Each of those would require different interfaces.
A merchant wants to see where his fleets are, what warehouses have what stocked and what do the local economies require/offer.
The captain does not care about such stuff but is rather concerned with his crew and cargo and where the merchant wants him to sail to.
(The captains ship could move around the oceans in an rpg like mannor)
Craftsmen can sell their work to the merchant (wares) or to a captain (repairs, weapons).

Additionally you can get a major job.
f.i. become major and again gain access to more functions. this is where the TBS/RTS might come into play.
[/i]

So, whacha think?
Like it says more a gamesystem then a game design.

#2

Hi

Kev and I talked about this sort of thing about 5 years ago, it seemed a good idea then, and still does. The issue is, that each seamingly small part is a huge amount of work on it’s own, let alone getting all those bits and pieces together.

If you have a large development team and lots of good artists, go for it :slight_smile:

Endolf

#3

Overkill, some of the concepts you mention are similar to what I’m looking into as well, although you’re approaching it from a different direction and level…so I don’t have to kill you. ;D On the plus side, it proves great-minds-think-alike and I believe you have a good direction.

Endolf’s comments reflect what gives me a chill on some of my design work in this area. What you are looking at is that each “interface” could become a sub-game and require all the same degree of effort to develop and maintain. Another possible problem would be switching between interfaces. What if a merchant character has generated enough wealth that he’d like to branch out into ship production? Or a pirate sees the value in establishing some legal trade routes ( merchant ) and maybe even use his pirate ship to help patrol the routes against other pirates?

What we’re looking to do is phase-in the extra capabilities. Initial design and implementation would have players acting fairly independently with regard to NPCs and other PCs… Pure RPG style. In time, they can expand to “owning” small groups of NPCs and locations, adding some basic RTS elements. They eventually can purchase / acquire larger groups of NPCs, locations and physical assets, getting deeper into the RTS management style )… They may even become leaders of existing or new locations which allows some city-management game play. The intention is that each of these additional styles will build on, not replace, the ones before ( you can always leave your governor’s mansion and climb back at the helm of a ship ). The expanded abilities would be brought online after the basic RPG style is functional and hopefully give the players new ways to play and remain interrested. And you only need to take on those if that’s the kind of game you want to play. You should not be limited to your “growth” as a player if you choose to remain in “RPG mode”.

So I think it’s a good idea, and an ambitious goal. It will be a challenge to say the least but if you target one interface at a time and make it work well with the single “world” they all play in then

#4

Heh heh, I remember those conversations - I was in Yate I think :slight_smile:

The project is ambitious - exceedingly so - IMO the best way to approach it would be to provide some really high quality interface building, idea shaping , game engine tools that allow other people to build roles and interfaces in the world. Go on to use these tools to build some really effective fun sample roles in your game engine (which should be easy if they’re high quality enough) then get people playing your game roles (the hard bit).

Once they’ve played it for a bit they’ll want to tinker, make the tools available and support your community. Hopefully your world will build itself.

As to the ambition - go for it! These meta building type games can go far, just take a look at Wurm

Kev

#5

Its a good idea however alot of work. When you create such a game style the developers must create all of these interfaces. Not only is that a daunting task but they have to realize EVERY outcome of the game. I’ll take the Pirate game: your a merchant and want to see your crewmen status, the developer has to program a way to do this. This brings me to my point what if the player is a merchant and wants to go on vacation across the world and leave the business in an auto manage state? Thats probably not one of the first things a developer will think of implementing. Thus there are always the what-if’s that make this idea very hard to accomplish. Yes its possible but if your creating such a game I believe it will be in a constant Beta state. Always adding new things that players want to do. Love the idea but i think its impractical in a sence of actually completeing such a game.

#6

Thanks for the replies.

Like I said, I am not yet planning anything. I had thought of the system for quite some time and always wondered why no one really dared something like that. (AFAIK)
In the discussion with beowulf03809 about killing off players… uhm I mean their characters (though sometimes…) it really showed that most RPGs only give you that restricted gameplay when they could offer more.

If I ever did do something like this, I’d start out with a game design that has one interface and maybe one more.
The RTS game f.i.

One problem I see of late addition of gamefeatures:
Players want such a living breathing environment but game genres attract people from that genre first and formost. So adding an economy to WoW would first draft people from the WoW community and not people (gross generalization) who actually like playing such games.
f.i. attracting Harvest Moon type players, who love to feed cows and harvest crops for hours on end

@gamepro65:
Constant beta. Yeah that would be the case in the pirate game. Then again might not really be that bad.
I have played and worked on mods that were in beta for 2+ years. And the players were happy.
It might even have a plus side: Players that play games with monthly costs, such as WoW, might be more willing to pay those costs if they see the game they are playing constantly expanding.

#7

It’s funny I remember having conversations with Kev about things like this a couple or years ago too… It must be somthing about where conversations go when you are around him ;D

Hasn’t a comercial game already started down this road? http://www.s2games.com/savage/

It all sounds like a very good idea, however taking the example of a commander-player in charge of an RTS view and a soldier-player in charge of a FPS view I’m not sure how well it would work (limited example but I think it will illustarte my point…). I think ego’s would get in the way. As far as I can see, people player games because they want to be the hero (different topic but this is why, imho, MMORPG’s never live up to expectations/hopes) which works fine in a single player game. But in the example the guy contollong the RTS view want his soldier to do what he wants and him be the big tactical genius (or feel like it) the guy playing the FPS wants to run around and shoot things and be the individual Rambo style hero. So commander-player will get annoyed cos his troups are going off on their own and not doing what he wants, the soldier-player will be getting annoyed cos someone his telling him what to do all the time and spoiling his fun.

Basically what I’m saying is that there will be conflicting agendas in a game like this, unless you can solve that problem I think you are asking for trouble :slight_smile:

Having said all that go for it :slight_smile:

#8

Have you ever played an MMOG?, they are always changing things. Most have test servers to try things on, but you will never get all the bugs before it goes live. Out of the MMOG’s i’ve played, not one of them was static, there was always change, and I’ve played a few over the years :slight_smile:

Endolf

#9

You can avoid the ego battle issue two ways. By having all subordinates be NPCs or by having subordinate PCs be there because the choose to be there.

NPCs are simple. You can set up in-game mechanics to find, recruit, train and pay for them. You can give them morale, loyalty, and other basic attributes to help determine how willing they are to follow your orders, and your PC’s skills as a leader will influence this as well. You give them missions and thier basic AI will try to accomplish them based on the loyalty/morale/leadership.

There is precedence for subordinate PCs all over the place. In many MMOG factions/aliances/corporations/whatever are formed where some people become leaders. Some games have this as a very remote and abstract conecpt while others appear to build it tightly into the game ( reading on EvE’s corporate structure a little lately ). In these cases, the leader has subordinate PCs because they CHOOSE to be. If they behave in ways the leader doesn’t like he can kick them out. This appears to be so ingrained in the model of MMOG game play that some people I have talked to about some of my ideas have asked as their first question “how will you handle aliances”.

#10

@beo:
Dunno what you mean with your last scentance. (or I am just a little slow today)

What you are talking about is kinda like what I had in mind for such a commander/combatant game.
If commanders and combatants have problems with each other they can choose to depart.
I kinda got this idea from BloodBowl. You’d have one manager and multiple players. Fill up missing players with AIs.
Players can be recruited and sold and whatnot by managers.
Also managers train the players, sets up strategies, buys equipment, build training places … whatever you fancy.
The whole thing could be formed into leagues.
(If only I had enough time to make these games. If someone is interrested in starting up a team, drop me a pm).
Stealing from a pnp game where items turned magical during their use.
The more you used stuff the more magic flowed into them the better they got. (though I’d add in random mutations for the results)
They could also be sold.

#11

I would really make sure if this would have customers. All in one would be far too much
handling for many people. Having RPG like stats, building game colonies,
RTS like unit building and fighting, TBS based tactics and combat, its just too much.

First, there are gamers who want an easy game. They dont dive into a game
many hours a day. They come home from work and want their 30 minutes of
fun, so they play a jump n run or such.

Second, many gamers like specially one genre. They like RTS, but nut TBS
or RPG. Playing Anno but not liking Command and Conquer. Such an all
in one idea would have something in it for everyone to dislike. Some dont
like the RPG part, some dont like the RTS part, some maybe dont like
to get through 1000 pages of manual and 100 screens of stats and settings
and things to do.

I take it like sports. Some like tennis, some like soccer,some like
baseball and some like golf. Every game is fun to play.
If you bring all of them together in one, it works for no one.

Sometimes I wonder, why the 15th version of a soccer
or basketball game sells, but in the end its because people
dont want the ultimate new invention. The good old FPS or RTS
just does it again and again. Quake 1 - 4, its everytime
shooting monstes, as it is in Doom 1 - 3. And it still seems
fun to many people.

But every genre has its limits. Sometimes people attempt
to make a crossover, and sometimes they fail. When
you want to make a good game, make something that
already exists a dozen times, but make it really good.
See Halflife 2 or FEAR. Nothing new about the genre itself,
but they shine in the details. And that is, what people play
and buy. Nothing brand new never seen before. Just the
same thing again with a special touch and details.

For me, i like some RTS, not all, TBS, FPS, and thats it.
Hardly any RPG. I wouldnt play a RTS wich has lots
of RPG like character development and stats.

-JAW

#12

JAW, I agree with most of the points of your post completely. And I don’t believe there was a suggestion that a the game will offer all styles of play “simultaneously” to a player, or that a player must participate in each style of play. In fact, Overkill’s original proposal actually appeared to target exactly what you are referencing.

Different players like different types of games. He was suggesting having a single online game world but offer different interfaces into it. This way, the fan of RTS, RPG, TBS, etc can each pick which way THEY would like to interract with the game world. My follow-up discussed a similar idea I had of starting with a base of only one type ( RPG ) but offering the player the ability to switch to another game style later as they progress. ( and able to swtich back and forth based on how they want to play ). I don’t believe either of us were actually proposing a game that foced players to use multiple interface types or play a game in more than one way. Just offering the choice of how the player would like ot interract with the game world.

These are all very ambitious ideas of course, but if the game world is designed appropriately from the beginning with the idea of supporting different types of game play in a single persistent world then it should not be impossible. When designing the first interface ( say, RPG ) and the game world behind it, the developer must be sure to ask themselves at each significant decision point “will this element also be part of the RTS game?”. If the answer is “yes” then some details of that interface will need to be fleshed out and how the element behaves for each drafted.

Under this condition, roll-out of the initial game will probably be MUCH slower ( 2 - 3 times as long? ) and require some very complete unit testing at each level, but bringing on the additional interfaces would probably be a bit shorter than developing an entire new game since much of the backend will already exist.

#13

I propose a name for this game system: the ultimate game system, because it has the ambition to replace all other games 8)

IMHO, the Battlefield franchise comes closest, but it remains very much focused on combat (as the name suggests)

In order to get something like this going, all you need is a VERY good physics engine. Everything else can be handled by your separate “terminals” (e.g. an RTS terminal, a FPS terminal, a tanksim terminal, a flightsim terminal, …)

Suppose you have a server that has ALL laws of physics programmed. A flightsim terminal would then log onto this central server, and it could describe the hull and wings of a plane. Immediately, the server would realise this thing would be lifted by the air, if only it were moving fast enough. Secondly, the flightsim would describe an engine (jet, or prop) and the server would calculate power, maximum accelleration, max speed, ceiling, etc.

Now, if the guy in this flightsim would fly over a tank, the player inside the tanksim would not need to know all the physics of the plane. The server would simply tell the tanksim that yes, the plane-thing can fly, and yes, it’s allowed to be there, and yes, it’s allowed to drop a bomb on you. And yes, a 500-ton bomb destroys a tank. Game over :slight_smile:

Unfortunately, you can’t program all the laws of physics. So you can program shortcuts, for general classes of vehicles, buildings, persons, terrain types, etc. This, btw, is exactly what the battlefield game does as far as I understand it.

#14

All the laws of physics?

With that game engine you could run a universe simulation that exactly matches ours. Like the one we possibly live in now…

#15

well, if we could build a server like that, wouldn’t it deserve the name “ultimate server” ? ::slight_smile:

Obviously, you’d need some level of abstraction. For example, if this server would have basic knowledge about “templates” for resources, buildings, characters, vehicles, planes, VTOL planes, projectiles, rockets, explosions and materials, you would go a long way.

A flightsim terminal would log on and present the following facts to the server: my unit belongs to the class ‘plane’, the max speed is 10 knots, I have a ceiling of 1000 feet. It has a gun that shoots projectiles of type “9mm bullet”, and it requires a resource of type “kerosine”, at a ratio of 10 mpg.

Obviously, this leaves some room for cheating. If you create a terminal with a unit that weighs nothing, has incredible tougness and power, spits out bullets like there’s no tomorrow, … the game would no longer be fun for the other, “realistic” players.

So the server would need some criteria to rule out those uber-units, or it should only allow “approved” terminals to connect.

random thought: the most difficult units to represent would be hybrids that cannot be captured in a single template. Aircraft carriers for example, are a ship + cargo + airport and they contain personel, vehicles and aircraft.