Predator and Prey-style game

#21 I dont have the skills orr even the know how to do something such as this alone but such as the Realm Wars Cummunity Project it started as something like this. Maybe we could get this turned into a Community Project also ;) Just a thought maybe. I dont know what the requirements are for that but I would defentuly help out the best I can. And as such I'm sure other people would help out also after reading all of this :) .

#22 It sounds great, but I was thinking: why would it have to be a game where you scdore 'points' for killing things etc. It could be more of a simulation. It could be very beautiful graphically, and you could have fantastic ambient sound. It would play kind of like you said, where you basically act the part of an animal - find prey/food, defend your mate etc. It would be a sort of RPG, where you take the role of an animal. It could be great fun, being more realistic then having a 'HUD', with meters and points. It could be a pretty intense simulation.

Multiplayer would be an online world, there different types of creatures interacting. Herd territories changing, food dwindling in areas, packs assimilated, all done through the reactions in the world to all the players actions. You could have a lot of the animals as NPC's, so help populate the world. I think it could be really cool. There doesn't necessarily have to be a point to the game, as long as it was fun to play.

#23 The points comment was primarily directed to multiplayer, as multi wouldn't be that popular if someone couldn't win. :D

I like the idea of placing players, online, into a virtual world to interact with rather than just a big deathmatch. Of course, the players will be able to do this, but the revolving concept will be world interaction. I'm trying to reason out how to make it appealing by making it a player versus player scenerio while still maintaining the realistic environment. Right now, the only ideas I can come up with would be different styles of play instead of DM, which is the most popular.

Ideas on how to make a multiplayer DM version work while still being realistic would be appreciated.

#24 Just wanted to inform you....the Comapny Sactionary Woods developed that Wolf game...as well as one called Lion...a 2D "top-down" wolf and lion simulator respectfuly...I don't think the company is in buisness anymore...but both games are worth a look, if you can find them

#25 If you want a "regular" deathmatch game I think that all the players would have to be the same species. It makes for more realistic play. Powerups are a possibility as well but you'd have to disguise them very well. Running over a flashy icon is just not withing the spirit of this game I think. Maybe there could be bits and pieces of prey animal scattered across the map as powerups. Rabbit legs for faster running, a bear's claw for sharpened claws etc. It could take you time to eat it (another twist in the game. Powerups take time to pick up). It's not very realistic I know, but true DM really never is (respawning?).

As far as the online world goes: I wouln't do it. This would turn in more into a MMORPG kind of game. A great idea but it would make this project a lot more difficult. I think it's best to start with a single species in single player and coop multiplayer. Adding simple peer-to-peer multiplayer is not extremely difficult. And by doing it coop you can save a lot of work. The same missions could be used multiplayer as singleplayer with some variables calculated by the number of players. EG in the Hyena attack example: 5 hyena's per player. This way you'd have to code and design it only once.

Maybe someone from GG could react to all this? What are the requirements for a community project? Could this become one? I'd know I would work on it. I'm not an really good coder (I think) but I'd give this very original project everything I have!

#26 Hey, don't forget about sharks! They rock.

What you could do is focus on the major types of predators, with each type of predator being the campaign and in each mission you control a different species.

For example:
Canine Campaign
-Wolf: Hunt with a pack to bring down food, or avoid hunters
-Heyena: Use stealth to steal your meal or scare tactics to drive away other predators after they make a kill
-Dingo: Use steath to sneak into a small village and steal food(birds, pigs, etc)

Shark Campaign
-Great White: FEEDING FRENZY!
-Blue: Avoid the larger sharks and get your share of the food
-Tiger: Make the kill, then defend it from other sharks

Feline Campaign
-Lion: Defend your pride from heyenas
-Tiger: Avoid the hunters and get your meal
-Cheetah: Use stealth to find a good target and take it down before it spots you

This is just an idea that popped into my head as I was reading this. But most of these scenarions could be used in single or multiplayer, as in one team is cheetahs trying to kill the antelope, and the other team is heyenas who have to steal the cheetah's kills.

Anyway, I like the idea of not having any sort of hud, and just playing.

#27 Some parts of a hud would be necessary though, such as health and endurance. While it's more realistic and natural to not have one, it would be quite disagreeable to the general public to not have an appropriate interface.

I agree on the powerups - I've never been a fan of them to begin with. Running over an object and equipping full armor in less than a second was never very appealing. Instead of having different items create different powerups, why not have an implemented system in which the more food you eat or the more items you collect or find (i.g. experience), you're alloted temporary points to go to whatever you please. Think of it as an energy-channeling system. You have a menu in which you can customize how your animal works. You adjust the bars to make your beast put more energy into speed or endurance, etc., and when you find the powerups, you get additional points you can activate in a specific stat with a button. For instance, I could move most of my points to endurance and tell the game I want my powerups to go to my speed. So, while I can sustain a lot of damage, I may be a little slow. But when I pick up a powerup, I hit a button and the extra points are allocated, temporarily, to the stat I specified earlier, which in this case was speed. I become faster for a specific amount of time.

As for the sharks and water-based animals, I would generally disagree with it because it would require an extensive amount of programming (I believe) to change the standard up>forward system to up>up/forward. Movement in water can be a tricky thing, and plus I wouldn't want players favoring land animals over water animals or vice-versa. If it can be done though with relative ease, it would add to the game.

And I do wish I could get some feedback from the voice of experience. Personally, I doubt I could add much of anything to the game in terms of programming, as I'm not experienced in it. I've mainly dabbled with editting, etc. My main objective was to just get the idea out there and hopefully watch something become of it.

#28 This sounds interesting. Where are you located?

#29 Wow sounds like a cool idea ... I was having a thought while reading, someone mentioned cities ... did you know that their are actually allot of hawks in major cities? Many a photographer has sat in central park (NY)waiting to catch a shot of a hawk diving down and picking off a pigeon :-)
speaking of birds , one of the problems some of the big cats have to deal with is vultures ( spelling? ) , sometimes they can be nasty enuf to drive the lion away , and cheetahs don’t have the energy to fight off hyena after they hunt ( they actually have to sit and rest for 10 mins or so before they can even start to eat ) would make for some good difficulty settings i.e. "you caught the thing but can you keep it"... hmm in a RP multiplayer environment the hyena would be the sneaky thief type .. hehe
An older weaker herbivore would but the most likely to be targeted by a predator , so as a grass chewing player ages their chances of becoming a target increases , and if they survive a swipe by a predators claws they are injured and will also be on the top of the list of "easy" meals.
I also like the idea of tourists, but don’t forget the poachers either :-)

#30 U.S., Far Western KY

And thank you, everyone, for the feedback I've gotten. It's very appreciated. Even if nothing comes of it, at least it in a way satisfies my artistic outlet. :)

#31 Wow, I can't believe the vast input this idea has generated. I think its a great idea for a game. Now for my little suggestion, maybe if the sharks were put in, maybe other aquatic animals could be put in as well. Examples: barracudas, piranhas (the Amazon River would be a perfect location), eels, etc...... Thats just an idea I had. :0)

#32 I may be mistaken, but I believe the basic size has to remain the same. IF aquatic animals could be introduced, it would give more leadway to splicing campaigns and online servers.

As already suggested, campaigns could be composed of varying types of animals included together: felines, canines, marine life, equestrians, etc. They would each include about three or four species to play as, and each species would include a wide variety of missions. After you complete the life cycle of one animal, the plot (there will be a small one) will advance from the death of that animal to the birth of another, and the story will continue on that campaign.

Most games have two or one lengthy campaigns, but I'd like to see several short ones. So as to allow the player to choose their favorite, after the end of the campaign, they may choose their past animals and begin a seperate campaign with no definite end. (A new game + if you will.) I think of GTA3 while I write that, as you can choose to take part in the plot, yet you can do whatever else you want at the same time.

#33 Personally, I'm not very fond of the aquatic animal idea. If this game is ever made, it would create a *lot* of extra work. If you have this running for say, an African Savanne with Lions and Hyena's and so on, it's not difficult to port it to the German Schwarzwald for example. Just new levels, new models and some new AI routines for player control (Feline's act quite differently from Canines I guess).

Adding a Hawaiian reef campaing would mean creating a whole new frame work. New controls (full 3D motion), new rendering engine (underwater) new physics (fluid mechanics, drag) etc. It would be nice for an add-on but I wouldn't include it in the game from the beginning.

Soooo.... To shortly recap this idea:

- Action/RPG game based on wildlife
- Multiple campaings featuring different kinds of carnivorous land animals
- Single & multiplayer campaigns + various DM and TDM games
- Character developement from (pre)teen to venerable age
- Character Progression based on style of play (eg a lot of running means increasing speed)
- Minimal HUD (health, endurance, hunger, wind, prey indicators)
- Hidden stats based on character age, style of play and character developement settings
- Multiple damage location and permanent injuries
- No regular powerup system but allocable points after eating

Did I leave anything out?

Oh, and another idea for the game+. Starting over with your favorite character after he has died sounds a bit strange. How about this: Include mating in the game!

After you finish a regular campaign, you can select one of the characters offspring to start such a game+ .If there is no living offspring at the end of the campain (eg, didn't mate or all offspring was killed), the character didn't have a very succesfull life and has to start the campaign over if he want's to do that game+.

But you'd have to implement mating in such a way as to avoid an "age 16+" rating on the game :D

#34 Essentially, that's about it.

When I say game +, I'm mostly referring to a whole world to explore, not a set area. I was wondering about this and the thought came to mind that the entire world could be only one giant map, at least campaign-wise. New areas would be blocked off with fallen lumber, etc. on each mission, but after all missions have been completed, a choose character option is unlocked, and the barriers are removed, and you're allowed free reign over all of your conquered territory, completing the missions again if you desire, or simply wreaking havoc on the enemy population centers as you see fit. But anyway, that's a little advanced for right now.

Mating I wondered about because, yes, the age factor involved. I wondered how gruesome this would get, especially considering the new bill out that proposes a new limit on the sale of games like UT, GTA, and other titles.

I'd say that mating would be much akin to the stealth meter mentioned earlier. Instead of chances of successful killing, it would be the chances of being accepted for mating. The factors involved in this would probably involve how many kills you've made, your mate's status (full on meat or hungry since you haven't brought home the bacon?) and other factors like foreign males. Using lions as examples, a foreign lion can enter your territory and mate with your females while you're away, thereby stealing your oppurtunity. To make it friendly, I'd call it a compatability meter, or something to that extent. When the meter is full, the screen fades to reveal the done deed with no impromptu action sequences.

For the campaigns, I need some ideas so everything isn't one-sided. So far, I think I've thought it through by categorizing things into what is most manageable:

~African Savannah: Play as a lion, cheetah, hyena - each with about 3 to 5 missions.

~American Wilderness: Play as a wolf/coyote, panther (mountain lion), bear - each with about 3 to 5 missions.

That creates about 18 to 30 missions in total, and two different environments from which to work with. The African Savannah probably wouldn't be much of a trial to create since it's mostly grass, ponds, and a few scattered trees. The American Wilderness would look more like most multiplayer games - lots of trees, mountains or mountain-like terrain, lakes and lush vegetation.

#35 I've read some through this post and skipped over some in this post. So, forgive me if I mentioned something someone else already did.

The ideas sound interesting and refreshing. And seems like the ideas keep getting added to include the whole world. I would say stick with one location, such as Africa, and produce a game after that and get it out the door. Then later, do add-ons to include new species and sequels for new areas. You could have your own computer game version of Survivor, but with animals instead. A lion in Africa is never going to see a rabbit or wolf in North America (unless it's a zoo). No need to throw the whole world in at one time. If you concentrate on one area, that would minimize artistic content you would have to come up with and give more time to concentrate on gameplay for the first game.

I love the idea of throwing human tourists in there for comic relief though. I can see being a shark or baracuda in the marine version and see some scuba divers swim by. :)

#36 sorry, dont want to read it all tonight, so forgive me if i repeat, but why not score all animals for how long they survive. instead of by kills for predators. if they dont kill, they die.

great idea btw, this is the first idea ive seen that i really went *click* when i read it in terms of what jeff t was saying about innovation. that and f bignone's game - although the community is big and im always finding something new here that's been around for months and id flat missed it. what really made the click happen was the mmorpg bit. talk about a doable mmorpg, its sheer genius for that reason alone. absolutely no complexity except for hunting. wtf do animals do but eat, sleep, hunt, sh*& and f*$# all day.

#37 Yes, I brought up the idea of gaining points by surviving before, but then I retracted it since I realized that almost all players would simply run away and hide after they spawn. It's nice to think that the players would band together to find and kill the points leader, but players generally aren't like that. The idea of gaining points by surviving works a lot better in real life since typically predators will only kill about once a week.

I was thinking along the lines of the game being more directed to the MMORPG format, as to eliminate mass hunting. Points would come from objectives that have been completed, skills/stats gained or increased, and various other plot-substances. PKing would be a given, since everyone will have the same stats and capabilities. Perhaps your age comes from objectives completed, etc. Amassing enough experience will progressively age your character to the next level, thereby changing your class. I think it would be best to make this optional though, as some people may prefer to stay a cub their entire lives, simply because of the benefits it offers (being stealthier, able to crawl into small holes that other ages won't be able to get into.)

There's so many things to do with this and different ways to go that it ends up confusing me.

Let's say that you can play offline in the form of a campaign, but also play online in the form of a type of MMORPG. The difference will be that stats won't go up unless you change classes (cub, adolescent, adult, aging adult), and that you, of course, won't be able to enhance your equipment since you have none. It will still retain the 3rd person view, however. I feel that changing the view to 1st person will be the equivilent to zooming in, or focusing your vision. 3rd person would work best with the attack system, since it wouldn't involve looking up or down, since there are no ranged weapons. I think the only time you could look up and down would be in 1st person view, when you're wanting to look around without moving a great deal.

At the same time this will be an offline/online MMORPG, it can still operate as a DM, TDM, CTF, etc. Basically, I see a menu listing of things to do, in which you choose to search for specific types of games. Role Playing, Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, etc. The maps and character information for everything but the MMORPG would be through the computer.

Like I said, there's a lot of stuff that can be done, so I want to limit myself while being able to create a versitile, expansive environment that people can't get bored in.

Feel free to limit me forcefully.

#38 a bit like Aliens vs Predator right?
anuwau good idea ,
id love seen it be build!

Greetz
Jorn

#39 Just some comments...

> Yes, I brought up the idea of gaining points by
> surviving before, but then I retracted it since I
> realized that almost all players would simply run away
> and hide after they spawn.

Of course, but since predatory animals must hunt in order to eat and therefore survive, running away would be fine, but they'd just end up dying. I could easily see a nice expontential curve being used for hunger and how it effects health, longer you hide the faster your health leaves you.

> The idea of gaining points by surviving works a lot
> better in real life since typically predators will
> only kill about once a week.

Thats not at all true, it really depends on the animal, its surroundings and its current state. Take a mother cheetah for instance, it must feed every day to produce enough milk to feed its cubs because a cheetah's body makeup stores very little fat; i.e. they are fast and lean and lightweight [woohoo, thanks to the Discovery channel].

> I was thinking along the lines of the game being more
> directed to the MMORPG format, as to eliminate mass
> hunting.

One thing I noticed around the GG forums is that the current-abbreviation-of-the-times, MMORPG, gets thrown around A LOT. For some reason, everyone thinks they can just slap together an MMORPG and that its no harder than putting together any other sort of game [which isn't easy in the first place either].

> At the same time this will be an offline/online
> MMORPG

By definition an MMORPG is a massively mutliplayer game, which means its really not built to be played offline so to speak. Again, a MMORPG is a huge undertaking that goes beyond the scope of producing a single, even multiplayer game. Its probably better to concentrate on producing single/multiplayer game that resolves around scenarios than attempting to recreate a complete environment that would be necessary for a true MMORPG based around animals. Remember too, that an animal based game will need to reproduce environments in as much detail as possible as most animals have been bred by nature to utilize those environments to the fullest for protection, defense, and hunting.

>, it can still operate as a DM, TDM, CTF, etc.

Why? Those "games" really have nothing to do with anything in the animal kingdom. Animals, at least not the ones being commonly referred to in this post, don't just get together and try and kill each other in a wanton way, e.g DM and TDM. Rather, they may attack and kill each other because they are defending something, such as food or a home, or trying to take away something such as a mate from another and often, these battles do not always result in death, although sometimes if an animal is injured too much it may die, but usually in submission. And CTF? I'm not aware of any animal species, except humans, who set up goals to steal from each other and try and score points. And besides, those aren't really all that innovative, all you would be doing is the "same old thing" but with a different genre.

Now, having a scenario for say lions where there is a pride of AI lions and one player is the dominant male and the others attempt to take the pride away from him, would be a gametype that is more inline with what happens in the animal kingdom. Or say a co-op scenario where wolves hunt in a pack and bringing down the game is the end of the scenario.

> Like I said, there's a lot of stuff that can be done,
> so I want to limit myself while being able to create a
> versitile, expansive environment that people can't get
> bored in.

I'm not sure you can ever have a versitile, expansive environment that people can't get bored in, especially as animals do very little other than eat and sleep for a good portion of the time. I did do something like this on a MU* once, with fairly good AI prey animals and the players took the part of the predators... needless to say, my experience with having built it was that players generally got bored and ended up "socializing" except when forced to hunt or defend their pack or territory from someone else.

I would say you would probably be better of being off putting together a tight and well-focused game thats fun for the users, e.g. it really focuses on the interesting parts of the lives of wolves, lions, bears, or whatever chosen predator.

#40 I'm just using MMORPG as a general term so I can get the basic idea across.

I'm referring to the larger animals when I say they will only feed about once a week. What I'm saying is that it would be ludicrous to have an environment in which you run around eating constantly, since it's a rare event in the case of even Cheetahs. They may have to eat once a day, but that's just one time - not suitable for a game.

I'm throwing DM and TDM, etc. out there because players will get bored simply eating, stalking, and sleeping all day. I'm using them as an unrealistic side option. Sure, it's unrealistic, but when was the last time you saw a German footsoldier and an American Navy SEAL playing capture the flag? It's no more unrealistic in this game as in any other. Types of play like this are added simply because they're entertaining.

And I've never seen or played Aliens vs. Predators, no...