The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
At the moment it seems to me that there are very distinct types of game, that are separated from one another. For example, RPG, FPS, RTS, Simulation, etc.
So, I was thinking of some good way of blending some of these genres together.
My idea was for a game, set in the present day, where you must build a city, create an army, then once troops have been created, go into a 3D FPS, and attack the enemy.
The building a city and creating an army would probably be best in an isometric format (like AOE), but then a simple button could move you into the 3D mode.
What could make the game really interesting is that each of these modes would have a big effect upon one another. The city would have to be built up before anyone would be willing to fight in the army, and you would have to make sure that most of your men stayed alive, otherwise not very many people would be willing to join the army. It would be possible to force them to do so, but this would make you unpopular unless civilians thought there was a reason for war.
Civilians could also protest when you attacked an enemy without good reason, or when they didn't think you were providing them with enough protection. They would have the media, and would usually know about what you were doing unless you made an effort to keep it quiet.
To win a level, you would probably begin with a city, and rely on your neighbours to supply an army. However nieghbouring cities would get annoyed if this went on for too long, so you would soon need your own small army.
In many strategy games, once you have created enough units, all you need to do is click somewhere near the enemy, and the computer would do the rest. In this game, however, your men would be very likely to lose without you controlling them.
The 3D part of the game would be like a squad game, where you are in the eyes of one particular man, and give orders to other men.
You would also have to bear in mind that the soldiers are men too, and may leave the army if they feel in danger. While you could force them to continue, they might not do so, and would make you unpopular. The men you are controlling would also have their own minds, and would not neccessarily do exactly what you told them.
What do you think? The main problem, as far as I can see, is that it sounds too complicated, both to program and also to play. I do, however, think it would make quite an interesting and different sort of game if it was ever possible to make it realistically into a fun game.
I would be interested to see what everyone else thinks!
So, I was thinking of some good way of blending some of these genres together.
My idea was for a game, set in the present day, where you must build a city, create an army, then once troops have been created, go into a 3D FPS, and attack the enemy.
The building a city and creating an army would probably be best in an isometric format (like AOE), but then a simple button could move you into the 3D mode.
What could make the game really interesting is that each of these modes would have a big effect upon one another. The city would have to be built up before anyone would be willing to fight in the army, and you would have to make sure that most of your men stayed alive, otherwise not very many people would be willing to join the army. It would be possible to force them to do so, but this would make you unpopular unless civilians thought there was a reason for war.
Civilians could also protest when you attacked an enemy without good reason, or when they didn't think you were providing them with enough protection. They would have the media, and would usually know about what you were doing unless you made an effort to keep it quiet.
To win a level, you would probably begin with a city, and rely on your neighbours to supply an army. However nieghbouring cities would get annoyed if this went on for too long, so you would soon need your own small army.
In many strategy games, once you have created enough units, all you need to do is click somewhere near the enemy, and the computer would do the rest. In this game, however, your men would be very likely to lose without you controlling them.
The 3D part of the game would be like a squad game, where you are in the eyes of one particular man, and give orders to other men.
You would also have to bear in mind that the soldiers are men too, and may leave the army if they feel in danger. While you could force them to continue, they might not do so, and would make you unpopular. The men you are controlling would also have their own minds, and would not neccessarily do exactly what you told them.
What do you think? The main problem, as far as I can see, is that it sounds too complicated, both to program and also to play. I do, however, think it would make quite an interesting and different sort of game if it was ever possible to make it realistically into a fun game.
I would be interested to see what everyone else thinks!
My idea was that it could be something like the Battlezone control system - maybe you could give general orders, but then give more specific ones through the mouse (keys for movement), while you are in the 3D mode?
Just one question, how could you control the whole army's movements, if you were controlling one person FPS style?
You'd have to keep changing back and forth between the FPS and the "management", for want of a better word.
It's a good idea, but as you say, it would probably be to hard to actually make it into a playable idea.
I guess the closest you would get is a multiplayer type game. Where one person controls the troops in a strategy style, while all the others could play FPS style folliwng his/her commands.
I think that there is a game in development like this, i'm pretty sure i saw an artical on it in PC Zone, but i can't remember any details.
You'd have to keep changing back and forth between the FPS and the "management", for want of a better word.
It's a good idea, but as you say, it would probably be to hard to actually make it into a playable idea.
I guess the closest you would get is a multiplayer type game. Where one person controls the troops in a strategy style, while all the others could play FPS style folliwng his/her commands.
I think that there is a game in development like this, i'm pretty sure i saw an artical on it in PC Zone, but i can't remember any details.
This was done in Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2... it was a decent game, but some of it just wasn't any fun. It was set in a fantasy era though, with trolls and imps and the like. I think the military, like you said, would be a better area.
At the moment it seems to me that there are very distinct types of game, that are separated from one another. For example, RPG, FPS, RTS, Simulation, etc.
So, I was thinking of some good way of blending some of these genres together.
My idea was for a game, set in the present day, where you must build a city, create an army, then once troops have been created, go into a 3D FPS, and attack the enemy.
The building a city and creating an army would probably be best in an isometric format (like AOE), but then a simple button could move you into the 3D mode.
What could make the game really interesting is that each of these modes would have a big effect upon one another. The city would have to be built up before anyone would be willing to fight in the army, and you would have to make sure that most of your men stayed alive, otherwise not very many people would be willing to join the army. It would be possible to force them to do so, but this would make you unpopular unless civilians thought there was a reason for war.
Civilians could also protest when you attacked an enemy without good reason, or when they didn't think you were providing them with enough protection. They would have the media, and would usually know about what you were doing unless you made an effort to keep it quiet.
To win a level, you would probably begin with a city, and rely on your neighbours to supply an army. However nieghbouring cities would get annoyed if this went on for too long, so you would soon need your own small army.
In many strategy games, once you have created enough units, all you need to do is click somewhere near the enemy, and the computer would do the rest. In this game, however, your men would be very likely to lose without you controlling them.
The 3D part of the game would be like a squad game, where you are in the eyes of one particular man, and give orders to other men.
You would also have to bear in mind that the soldiers are men too, and may leave the army if they feel in danger. While you could force them to continue, they might not do so, and would make you unpopular. The men you are controlling would also have their own minds, and would not neccessarily do exactly what you told them.
What do you think? The main problem, as far as I can see, is that it sounds too complicated, both to program and also to play. I do, however, think it would make quite an interesting and different sort of game if it was ever possible to make it realistically into a fun game.
I would be interested to see what everyone else thinks!
So, I was thinking of some good way of blending some of these genres together.
My idea was for a game, set in the present day, where you must build a city, create an army, then once troops have been created, go into a 3D FPS, and attack the enemy.
The building a city and creating an army would probably be best in an isometric format (like AOE), but then a simple button could move you into the 3D mode.
What could make the game really interesting is that each of these modes would have a big effect upon one another. The city would have to be built up before anyone would be willing to fight in the army, and you would have to make sure that most of your men stayed alive, otherwise not very many people would be willing to join the army. It would be possible to force them to do so, but this would make you unpopular unless civilians thought there was a reason for war.
Civilians could also protest when you attacked an enemy without good reason, or when they didn't think you were providing them with enough protection. They would have the media, and would usually know about what you were doing unless you made an effort to keep it quiet.
To win a level, you would probably begin with a city, and rely on your neighbours to supply an army. However nieghbouring cities would get annoyed if this went on for too long, so you would soon need your own small army.
In many strategy games, once you have created enough units, all you need to do is click somewhere near the enemy, and the computer would do the rest. In this game, however, your men would be very likely to lose without you controlling them.
The 3D part of the game would be like a squad game, where you are in the eyes of one particular man, and give orders to other men.
You would also have to bear in mind that the soldiers are men too, and may leave the army if they feel in danger. While you could force them to continue, they might not do so, and would make you unpopular. The men you are controlling would also have their own minds, and would not neccessarily do exactly what you told them.
What do you think? The main problem, as far as I can see, is that it sounds too complicated, both to program and also to play. I do, however, think it would make quite an interesting and different sort of game if it was ever possible to make it realistically into a fun game.
I would be interested to see what everyone else thinks!