Hows this for a unique idea
by Cole "Tinman" Stauffer · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 11/16/2001 (5:13 pm) · 31 replies
Im sure lots of people have great ideas for games. The thing is its just hard to get your idea made. Now, I'm just starting game creation but I have some ideas that id like to share but not fully I really dont want someone stealing them. Heres one of my favorite...How about a first person shooter set in the present year or maybe in the future in the USA but the problem is that what if during the civil war the south won. Imagine what you could do with that concept, you could think of anything. I sure as heck can. The only problem is how much research is going to go into it, and the creation is going to be very hard. Let me add though that the south or "rebels" are the bad ones in this game, don't think i'm a redneck or anything. Anyways it would be funny if we could add some rednecks in this story. Tell me whatcha think. Also, i know some people will take this concept personally but i'm not making this idea to hurt anyone. :)
#2
But first, a reply to the originator of this post. My first piece of advice, as a fellow first-timer that's a bit down the road a bit, is...SCREW the back story. That's not what gets people to play. You have to have a compelling twist on existing gameplay or completely new ways to play if you want to be successful. Case in point, C3 didn't even HAVE a backstory until about a week ago, and we've been drawing, coding, and modeling for nearly two months. The point is, the backstory, is usually fluff. Come up with interesting gameplay first, then work out why they're fighting.
Tell you what tho, you can have one of the original ideas I had, because it directly relates to what you're thinking of doing. Screw the north and south bend. Look at our country today. The East and West coast are about as far apart from the Midwest both politically and socially as the Union and the Rebels were in teh 1800's. And it's getting worse. If you want to go contemporary or near future, pit the Coasts against the Heartland. Then you avoid potential stumbling blocks like race that publishers might find distasteful.
To reply to the respondant, you just wait. C3 is going to revolutionize the way people play first-person-shooters.
Scott
11/16/2001 (7:17 pm)
Ah! Not so, grasshopper. C3, our project, is squarely in the FPS-genre, but far from the run-and-gun of stale deathmatch play and/or the same damn Counterstrike crap over and over again.But first, a reply to the originator of this post. My first piece of advice, as a fellow first-timer that's a bit down the road a bit, is...SCREW the back story. That's not what gets people to play. You have to have a compelling twist on existing gameplay or completely new ways to play if you want to be successful. Case in point, C3 didn't even HAVE a backstory until about a week ago, and we've been drawing, coding, and modeling for nearly two months. The point is, the backstory, is usually fluff. Come up with interesting gameplay first, then work out why they're fighting.
Tell you what tho, you can have one of the original ideas I had, because it directly relates to what you're thinking of doing. Screw the north and south bend. Look at our country today. The East and West coast are about as far apart from the Midwest both politically and socially as the Union and the Rebels were in teh 1800's. And it's getting worse. If you want to go contemporary or near future, pit the Coasts against the Heartland. Then you avoid potential stumbling blocks like race that publishers might find distasteful.
To reply to the respondant, you just wait. C3 is going to revolutionize the way people play first-person-shooters.
Scott
#3
There is way to much tension in the south (and north) about the civil war!
I live in the 'south' so I would definetely know.
and quite frankly i'm glad with how it turned out and i think i'd have nightmares if i played a game where the south won =)
- ian wheat
11/16/2001 (9:22 pm)
I wouldn't reccomend developing that.There is way to much tension in the south (and north) about the civil war!
I live in the 'south' so I would definetely know.
and quite frankly i'm glad with how it turned out and i think i'd have nightmares if i played a game where the south won =)
- ian wheat
#4
[rant]Just too get this sorted out (at least for me) most FPS games are very different. Saying that all FPS games are the same because all you do is run around shooting people is an oxymoron. That's the definition of the genre. First person shooter. You go around shooting people from a first person perspective. What makes an FPS game different is the actual way the game plays. For example when Counter Strike came out it's gameplay was a lot different because it slowed down gameplay and implemented a different organization of team structure.[/rant]
Anyway, I find that writing down all your ideas for a background really helps when you write.
Alc
11/17/2001 (7:08 am)
Background for a story not important? Not so! The important part of the background to a story is not neccessarily what you include in the story directly but what you use as a focal point to guide you through writing the heart of it. I could see why you would think that the background wouldn't be too important since about 90% of FPS games don't even have an apparent one. But I can pretty much garantee you that for any game that had a good story there was a lot of brainstorming done on what the game world would be like and in the very least a background for the main character.[rant]Just too get this sorted out (at least for me) most FPS games are very different. Saying that all FPS games are the same because all you do is run around shooting people is an oxymoron. That's the definition of the genre. First person shooter. You go around shooting people from a first person perspective. What makes an FPS game different is the actual way the game plays. For example when Counter Strike came out it's gameplay was a lot different because it slowed down gameplay and implemented a different organization of team structure.[/rant]
Anyway, I find that writing down all your ideas for a background really helps when you write.
Alc
#5
Trying to think of the last FPS I bought because it had a cool background story....
Nope, can't think of any, not even one :)
Fluff, indeed.
11/18/2001 (5:02 am)
Hmm...Trying to think of the last FPS I bought because it had a cool background story....
Nope, can't think of any, not even one :)
Fluff, indeed.
#6
Although some might argue it's not an FPS I would take the counter arugument that the fact that it has a story line is what is being used to pull it out of the FPS genre.
11/18/2001 (8:17 am)
Half-Life. I bought it for the train sequence at the beginning. Set it on high render and replayed it a half dozen times the first day. Brilliant briefing as you go. Also thought that the character discussions were pretty good although there could have been a bit more with some of the wandering characters. Degraded a bit in the middle game, but the ending sequences tied it up nicely.Although some might argue it's not an FPS I would take the counter arugument that the fact that it has a story line is what is being used to pull it out of the FPS genre.
#7
Alc
11/18/2001 (8:41 am)
Half-Life and Deux-Ex are both good examples of story driven FPS, although I've never played through all of Deux-Ex. Everyone that I have talked to who has played through either has only said good things. But I think in each case the characters had some background detail done in order to make the story consistant. I'm a little bias in this since I'm a writer. I would always say to put together a strong background for referencing.Alc
#8
How about a firefighter FPS?...players must not only stop the pyromaniacs starting fires but they must deal with the fires while rescueing innocent victoms...put it in a "Bladerunner" type future full of gadgets, berzerk robots, and greedy corportaions and you have some common (even cliche) story elements to build off of, but placed around an unconvential play mechanic...
How about a "bodysnatchers" FPS?...where it becomes hard to distingush if bad guys are "pod people" or real humans...maybe add a twist in that the player is a pod person trying to assimulate the humans...
a "big foot" FPS? players are the "big foot" trying to free thier mate from captivity while being hunted down...wouldn't be many weapons (throw rocks?) and the gameplay would revolve mostly around stealth tactics...maybe your mate is held captive in a zoo...so players could use other animals to help them (but keeping in mind the "puzzle" elements of useing animals that are natural enemies to each other could make your situation worse)...
How about a combat TV reporter FPS? Your job being to film the various actions around you...a dangerious job indeed...no weapons except for what you film and the players negotiation skills to perhaps use such film for blackmail purposes...also what you film (who shooting whom...which side winning, etc..) can be shown to innocent civilians to change thier minds as to which side is good/bad and generateing support for a cause...lots of potential...
just some quicky and "unusual" FPS ideas...
11/18/2001 (10:50 am)
I know not all FPS are the same...but you must admit that many are very, VERY simular to each other...How about a firefighter FPS?...players must not only stop the pyromaniacs starting fires but they must deal with the fires while rescueing innocent victoms...put it in a "Bladerunner" type future full of gadgets, berzerk robots, and greedy corportaions and you have some common (even cliche) story elements to build off of, but placed around an unconvential play mechanic...
How about a "bodysnatchers" FPS?...where it becomes hard to distingush if bad guys are "pod people" or real humans...maybe add a twist in that the player is a pod person trying to assimulate the humans...
a "big foot" FPS? players are the "big foot" trying to free thier mate from captivity while being hunted down...wouldn't be many weapons (throw rocks?) and the gameplay would revolve mostly around stealth tactics...maybe your mate is held captive in a zoo...so players could use other animals to help them (but keeping in mind the "puzzle" elements of useing animals that are natural enemies to each other could make your situation worse)...
How about a combat TV reporter FPS? Your job being to film the various actions around you...a dangerious job indeed...no weapons except for what you film and the players negotiation skills to perhaps use such film for blackmail purposes...also what you film (who shooting whom...which side winning, etc..) can be shown to innocent civilians to change thier minds as to which side is good/bad and generateing support for a cause...lots of potential...
just some quicky and "unusual" FPS ideas...
#9
DM
11/18/2001 (11:23 am)
This is why you think the genre has gone stagnant...those games you mentioned, as creative and cool and in first-person-view as they are, are not FPS's. First Person SHOOTER. You're talking about First Person Adventure games, or some vague genre that has not been truly defined. I'm not saying those ideas are bad, but they aren't really FPS's, and that's why you think the genre is going nowhere.DM
#10
11/18/2001 (11:47 am)
Those are good ideas non the less, it would be cool to see some games based on those ideas instead of so many fps are that floating around. This is why garagegames is such a great place, we can take risks and test new ideas and explore new ground instead of walking in someone elses footsteps all the time.
#11
If a game genre is to experience any growth from that point on it must be re-evaluated constantly to accept new and broader concepts...
Take Half-Life for example...previous to it's release stories wern't important...if we were to stick with a narrow view of what a FPS game is...then Half-Life wouldn't fit as the story elements add a lot of adventure game concepts...thus this game would be unexceptable to genre purists.
By the same tolken Counterstrike wouldn't be accepted as concepts like team basied play and charactor classes were foriegn to the FPS genre.
No genre (whether for games, films, books) can be so completely defined that it excludes the potential for change. Genre definitions MUST be flexable..not concrete
...
Weapons in FPS games are most always projectile basied designed to cause physical damage...some are purely imaginary...others basied on real world firearms...
But the base concept of "weapons" has never been exclusive to firearms...Weapons themselves, in the real world, can be just about anything...and only a select sub-classification includes weapons that cause physical damage exclusivly...weapons can be tools, ideas, beliefs, skills and talents...again, just about anything...
So, if real world weapons can be just about anything then why do the weapons in "more realistic" FPS have to fit into the narrow range of firearms?
11/18/2001 (12:55 pm)
If a game genre can be so readily defined that simular games could not be included in said genre...then that game genre has become stagnet...the genre can only produce variations on well established themes...there is no growth potential if a given game genre must always include X,Y, and Z...If a game genre is to experience any growth from that point on it must be re-evaluated constantly to accept new and broader concepts...
Take Half-Life for example...previous to it's release stories wern't important...if we were to stick with a narrow view of what a FPS game is...then Half-Life wouldn't fit as the story elements add a lot of adventure game concepts...thus this game would be unexceptable to genre purists.
By the same tolken Counterstrike wouldn't be accepted as concepts like team basied play and charactor classes were foriegn to the FPS genre.
No genre (whether for games, films, books) can be so completely defined that it excludes the potential for change. Genre definitions MUST be flexable..not concrete
...
Weapons in FPS games are most always projectile basied designed to cause physical damage...some are purely imaginary...others basied on real world firearms...
But the base concept of "weapons" has never been exclusive to firearms...Weapons themselves, in the real world, can be just about anything...and only a select sub-classification includes weapons that cause physical damage exclusivly...weapons can be tools, ideas, beliefs, skills and talents...again, just about anything...
So, if real world weapons can be just about anything then why do the weapons in "more realistic" FPS have to fit into the narrow range of firearms?
#12
As for your Civil War idea....Interesting, but WAY to contriversial. There are still lawsuits pending about slavery reperations, and people still get upset about states flying the Confederate flag. Its to touchy and issue.
11/18/2001 (1:12 pm)
I agree that Immersion is the next level in FPS gaming. Quake 3 has it's place, but a well written game with an elaborate story and involving gameplay is critical to the survival of the genre. As for your Civil War idea....Interesting, but WAY to contriversial. There are still lawsuits pending about slavery reperations, and people still get upset about states flying the Confederate flag. Its to touchy and issue.
#13
Doom-type games got people hooked. Quake-type shooters cranked up the adrenaline and catered to the "twitch" fiends amongs us.
Now, I'm sure there were others, but no title made such an impression on me as a mod out of Australia for Quake called Team Fortress (circa '96). This was out and popular just as I was getting into internet game. Indeed, it could be said that this was when internet gaming was moving from diapers to trainers. TEAMPLAY is what made it stand out. The sheer intensity of playing as a team makes deathmatch pale by comparison.
The future for multiplayer FPS's is teamplay. There's simply no getting around it. Sure, there will always be a place for the Half-Lifes and System Shock 2s. But, as far a net play is concerned, the average gamer is becoming more sophisticated and craving more. Teamplay offers this.
To take the next bold step, we have to offer far more structured team systems than have previously been done. The possible downfall of this approach is that if you make it too difficult, only the hardcore gamers will stick with it. Make it too easy, and it goes stale quickly.
Thus the tightrope act that we, the C3 dev team, are trying to walk.
11/18/2001 (2:58 pm)
The FPS genre, generally speaking, is with us until people stop playing games. As technology becomes more immersive, the first person perspective will become even more enjoyable. It is our job as developers to constantly re-explore the genre and twist it to our will.Doom-type games got people hooked. Quake-type shooters cranked up the adrenaline and catered to the "twitch" fiends amongs us.
Now, I'm sure there were others, but no title made such an impression on me as a mod out of Australia for Quake called Team Fortress (circa '96). This was out and popular just as I was getting into internet game. Indeed, it could be said that this was when internet gaming was moving from diapers to trainers. TEAMPLAY is what made it stand out. The sheer intensity of playing as a team makes deathmatch pale by comparison.
The future for multiplayer FPS's is teamplay. There's simply no getting around it. Sure, there will always be a place for the Half-Lifes and System Shock 2s. But, as far a net play is concerned, the average gamer is becoming more sophisticated and craving more. Teamplay offers this.
To take the next bold step, we have to offer far more structured team systems than have previously been done. The possible downfall of this approach is that if you make it too difficult, only the hardcore gamers will stick with it. Make it too easy, and it goes stale quickly.
Thus the tightrope act that we, the C3 dev team, are trying to walk.
#14
Scott, Have you ever heard of Tribes 2. It's a very interesting game, which really focuses on team play. Seriously though, I agree with you. There's two things I want in a game now:
-open-ended story line a la Deus Ex (God! What a great game) and/or;
-teamplay a la Tribes 2
Deus Ex was just an amazing game. It's really important for me that I feel that my actions, decisions and choices will actually guide where the game is going. It has four separate endings. Good game, I recommend it to all game designers.
Teamplay is also very important to me. That's why I like Tribes 2. I like the fact that if my team is coordinated and if players are watching out for each other, then we will win. It's fun. It's challenging. The many different options really make the game balanced.
If that's what you're striving for in your game, I wish you all the luck cause I would buy it. Even if it's not, good luck.
Now, to get back to the original topic of this thread (however, I may get off-topic, so don't mind me if I do =). I really like the idea of South versus North. I don't know about the South being bad and the North being good, but that's your choice.
You should read up on this (if you haven't already). There has been quite a bit of alternate history written on this. Check out the author, I believe his name is Harry Turtledove, but there are also others.
Another possible theme to explore is the way our country is headed. To me it seems that the US will soon (~50 years) become a police state, where people have no privacy or expectation of privacy. Now, this may just reflect the way I perceive our country currently, but it'd be interesting to explore the idea of a revolution being fought in modern times in a (supposed) civilized country.
It's something I have a hard time imagining, but which could be cool.
Anyways, enough talking tonight.
Yacine
11/19/2001 (8:39 pm)
Hmmm.Scott, Have you ever heard of Tribes 2. It's a very interesting game, which really focuses on team play. Seriously though, I agree with you. There's two things I want in a game now:
-open-ended story line a la Deus Ex (God! What a great game) and/or;
-teamplay a la Tribes 2
Deus Ex was just an amazing game. It's really important for me that I feel that my actions, decisions and choices will actually guide where the game is going. It has four separate endings. Good game, I recommend it to all game designers.
Teamplay is also very important to me. That's why I like Tribes 2. I like the fact that if my team is coordinated and if players are watching out for each other, then we will win. It's fun. It's challenging. The many different options really make the game balanced.
If that's what you're striving for in your game, I wish you all the luck cause I would buy it. Even if it's not, good luck.
Now, to get back to the original topic of this thread (however, I may get off-topic, so don't mind me if I do =). I really like the idea of South versus North. I don't know about the South being bad and the North being good, but that's your choice.
You should read up on this (if you haven't already). There has been quite a bit of alternate history written on this. Check out the author, I believe his name is Harry Turtledove, but there are also others.
Another possible theme to explore is the way our country is headed. To me it seems that the US will soon (~50 years) become a police state, where people have no privacy or expectation of privacy. Now, this may just reflect the way I perceive our country currently, but it'd be interesting to explore the idea of a revolution being fought in modern times in a (supposed) civilized country.
It's something I have a hard time imagining, but which could be cool.
Anyways, enough talking tonight.
Yacine
#17
There are elements in "Deus-Ex" that seem suggest that the US in that time has become a "Police State"
Then there's my game that going to be sent in a post 'Eco-Holocaust' world! I have a sketchy back story and I may look at picking up a good book on design to try and make the story good.
The first thing I need though is a JOB see
www.societyofone.50megs.com
12/10/2001 (5:08 am)
Yancie: There are elements in "Deus-Ex" that seem suggest that the US in that time has become a "Police State"
Then there's my game that going to be sent in a post 'Eco-Holocaust' world! I have a sketchy back story and I may look at picking up a good book on design to try and make the story good.
The first thing I need though is a JOB see
www.societyofone.50megs.com
#18
Don't focus on slavery, focus on the different ideas that were floating around at the time.
Also, the Civil War was what brought the country together as one country, rather than an amalagation of eastern states. Before the Civil War states had little alliegence to each other, after the war the states stopped being a group of states and became a country.
12/10/2001 (6:56 am)
I like the civil war idea. What I don't like is that you are labeling one side as "bad" and another "good". Think about the north and south as having different viewpoints. What many don't understand is that the war was only partly about slavery, it was more a war about the political structure of the country. At the time--and still today--the south belived in a de-centralized, minimalist government that was favorable to the plantation owner. The north, on the other hand, belived in a government that was very prevalent in the society.Don't focus on slavery, focus on the different ideas that were floating around at the time.
Also, the Civil War was what brought the country together as one country, rather than an amalagation of eastern states. Before the Civil War states had little alliegence to each other, after the war the states stopped being a group of states and became a country.
#19
From what I remember it was started because of import/export terrifs...the south felt they were getting a raw deal and voted to succede...
Some things to keep in mind...much of the southern army were volanteers and didn't exactly have matching uniforms, weapons, etc...most of them were just poor farmers (with few even owning slaves) lead by powerfull and rich plantation owners...the war wasn't entirly about slavery (there were slaves in northern states as well)...read up on the history of the war and the state of the country at the time...lots of interesting facts (the use of hot air ballons, manned submarines, unusal weapons (a friend built a fully working replica of the precurser to the gattling gun that was used in the war))
12/11/2001 (6:42 pm)
I have many personnel friends who are Civil war re-enactors...I've even participated in some of thier events...but I'm no expert on the war itself...From what I remember it was started because of import/export terrifs...the south felt they were getting a raw deal and voted to succede...
Some things to keep in mind...much of the southern army were volanteers and didn't exactly have matching uniforms, weapons, etc...most of them were just poor farmers (with few even owning slaves) lead by powerfull and rich plantation owners...the war wasn't entirly about slavery (there were slaves in northern states as well)...read up on the history of the war and the state of the country at the time...lots of interesting facts (the use of hot air ballons, manned submarines, unusal weapons (a friend built a fully working replica of the precurser to the gattling gun that was used in the war))
#20
12/11/2001 (8:18 pm)
Alternate history provides all kinds of wonderful twists and built-in interest, though I tend to agree with the fact that an alternate civil war is likely to cause some kind of minor uprising. However, the civil war is still a great focus. You could tell stories of brother fighting against brother. Encounter young women dressed as men so that they could fight, passionate fighters and mindless ones. Dunno how you would work all this into a game, mind you, but you could :-) Scenerios like Sherman's March to the Sea and other historical events would possily even get some game-addicted teenagers interested in something of academic value. Just maybe :) 
MSW
To me the FPS genre is stagnet...nothing really interesting or worthwhile looks to be comeing out soon...To me...FPS are like those shooting gallary games at carnivals...all flashy, but basicly the same...you shoot things while dealing with a range of different obsticals in the way and 'modeled' after a different enviroment...but all basicly the same...
Now I like "alternative history" stories...so as I stroll down "shooting gallary alley" at the local carnival, I'll perk my ears up when I come across your "shooting gallery" booth...but personally I'm not interested enough to plop a dollar down to pop off a few shots winning a prize, not just yet anyway...
So what else do you have in mind?
hurry...as the booth next door has a shooting gallery where "America was discovered by China, and South Africa was the first country to put a man on the moon"
Sorry...I'm just trying to relate my experience going through the store aisles looking at all the games...