The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
i think that a really cool game would be one that had a control system like onimusha, graghics like the two towers, a story like medal of honor, set in medieval times, have continuous play (no missions/levels), and have epic battles like dynasty warriors (without magic, stupid controls, or over the top animations) and be as historically accurate and realistic as the moh seris!!!!
Do you agree?
- Why does no company try to make somthing origional like this?
Do you agree?
- Why does no company try to make somthing origional like this?
Page:
I would definately buy a game in which you could control whole armies like in Age of Empires, but you could also control a general in a first or third person view. I think it would probably be successful because it is usually games which mix genres that are big hits (GTA3, driving, action, shooting).
this topic is going no were fast. so let me just... and that will be the end of it.
*POP*
*POP*
Another thing, say it was an rpg based aroung a knight who went on that crusade with william the lionheart, there would only be some battles, and the fact that it would be historically acurate could add to the gameing experience, and make u realise what it would have been like to fight there, like D-Day in moh.
Lombardo wrote:
> morbo wrote:
> lambardios idea sounds like it could work, but your idea of the AI
> is
> still wrong just put your armys AI to max and your enermys to min
> nad
> you cna just stand there as you win every war.
>
> Most games don't allow you to change the enemy's AI, they have a
> Easy/Normal/Hard system, which the player can use to find a suitable
> difficulty for their skill level.
Goldenye was revolutionary, one of the bonuses allowed you to set the AI, and a game like this is possible, but may not be that long in life unless it would have a few discs to it, plus the view would only be 3 rd person like in onimusha, some of the backgrounds could be pre-rendered aswell, and these battles wouldn't be the whole game, just the highlights like i said before, like D-Day in fronline or the battle at the start of the two towers etc.
> morbo wrote:
> lambardios idea sounds like it could work, but your idea of the AI
> is
> still wrong just put your armys AI to max and your enermys to min
> nad
> you cna just stand there as you win every war.
>
> Most games don't allow you to change the enemy's AI, they have a
> Easy/Normal/Hard system, which the player can use to find a suitable
> difficulty for their skill level.
Goldenye was revolutionary, one of the bonuses allowed you to set the AI, and a game like this is possible, but may not be that long in life unless it would have a few discs to it, plus the view would only be 3 rd person like in onimusha, some of the backgrounds could be pre-rendered aswell, and these battles wouldn't be the whole game, just the highlights like i said before, like D-Day in fronline or the battle at the start of the two towers etc.
Zhuge Liang wrote:
> why dont they make games like this?
Because of the technical limitations, as Lombardio said, but also because it doesn't sound like a game that could appeal to the mass-market, just like flight simulators. I'm not a big fan of battles like that, and don't think I'd really be tempted to buy it at all. It would take a lot of positive publicity to sway the mass-market, and for something as time-consuming to produce, that may not be good for business at all.
> why dont they make games like this?
Because of the technical limitations, as Lombardio said, but also because it doesn't sound like a game that could appeal to the mass-market, just like flight simulators. I'm not a big fan of battles like that, and don't think I'd really be tempted to buy it at all. It would take a lot of positive publicity to sway the mass-market, and for something as time-consuming to produce, that may not be good for business at all.
morbo wrote:
> lambardios idea sounds like it could work, but your idea of the AI is
> still wrong just put your armys AI to max and your enermys to min nad
> you cna just stand there as you win every war.
Most games don't allow you to change the enemy's AI, they have a Easy/Normal/Hard system, which the player can use to find a suitable difficulty for their skill level.
> lambardios idea sounds like it could work, but your idea of the AI is
> still wrong just put your armys AI to max and your enermys to min nad
> you cna just stand there as you win every war.
Most games don't allow you to change the enemy's AI, they have a Easy/Normal/Hard system, which the player can use to find a suitable difficulty for their skill level.
Zhuge Liang wrote:
why dont they make games like this?
I think it is because of technological limitations, a very powerful console would be required to allow for large-scale battles in which the terrain was viewable in first-person view and bird's eye view, maybe when the PS3/ZBox/GameParallelogram arrives...
why dont they make games like this?
I think it is because of technological limitations, a very powerful console would be required to allow for large-scale battles in which the terrain was viewable in first-person view and bird's eye view, maybe when the PS3/ZBox/GameParallelogram arrives...
lambardios idea sounds like it could work, but your idea of the AI is still wrong just put your armys AI to max and your enermys to min nad you cna just stand there as you win every war.
Lombardo wrote:
> I once had a similar idea...
>
> If anyone here has played Dynasty Warriors, then you'll know what I'm
> talking about (its a third person hack n slash set concerning the
> Chinese Dynasty). The game would have you controlling an army (in a
> way similar to Age of Empires) but you would be able to fight as a
> general (in 3rd person view), you could also switch back to bird's eye
> view at any time. A game like this would probably require a very
> powerful console to actually be any good though. Dungeon Keeper on the
> PC managed a similar feat, but to a small scale, you had a dungeon
> full of monsters (who fought for you) but you could also go into 1st
> person mode and attack the people individually.
>
> The game would be a mixture of Dungeon Keeper, Age of Empires and
> Dynasty Warriors. Another interesting idea would be to use the Dynasty
> Warriors engine to recreate Lord of the Rings battles (the Dynasty
> Warriors engine can manage around 1000 people on the map and 30 on
> screen).
you know what im on about, why dont they make games like this? But in my idea you dont control your men.
> I once had a similar idea...
>
> If anyone here has played Dynasty Warriors, then you'll know what I'm
> talking about (its a third person hack n slash set concerning the
> Chinese Dynasty). The game would have you controlling an army (in a
> way similar to Age of Empires) but you would be able to fight as a
> general (in 3rd person view), you could also switch back to bird's eye
> view at any time. A game like this would probably require a very
> powerful console to actually be any good though. Dungeon Keeper on the
> PC managed a similar feat, but to a small scale, you had a dungeon
> full of monsters (who fought for you) but you could also go into 1st
> person mode and attack the people individually.
>
> The game would be a mixture of Dungeon Keeper, Age of Empires and
> Dynasty Warriors. Another interesting idea would be to use the Dynasty
> Warriors engine to recreate Lord of the Rings battles (the Dynasty
> Warriors engine can manage around 1000 people on the map and 30 on
> screen).
you know what im on about, why dont they make games like this? But in my idea you dont control your men.
Lombardo wrote:
> I once had a similar idea...
>
> If anyone here has played Dynasty Warriors, then you'll know what I'm
> talking about (its a third person hack n slash set concerning the
> Chinese Dynasty). The game would have you controlling an army (in a
> way similar to Age of Empires) but you would be able to fight as a
> general (in 3rd person view), you could also switch back to bird's eye
> view at any time. A game like this would probably require a very
> powerful console to actually be any good though. Dungeon Keeper on the
> PC managed a similar feat, but to a small scale, you had a dungeon
> full of monsters (who fought for you) but you could also go into 1st
> person mode and attack the people individually.
>
> The game would be a mixture of Dungeon Keeper, Age of Empires and
> Dynasty Warriors. Another interesting idea would be to use the Dynasty
> Warriors engine to recreate Lord of the Rings battles (the Dynasty
> Warriors engine can manage around 1000 people on the map and 30 on
> screen).
you know what im on about, why dont they make games like this?
> I once had a similar idea...
>
> If anyone here has played Dynasty Warriors, then you'll know what I'm
> talking about (its a third person hack n slash set concerning the
> Chinese Dynasty). The game would have you controlling an army (in a
> way similar to Age of Empires) but you would be able to fight as a
> general (in 3rd person view), you could also switch back to bird's eye
> view at any time. A game like this would probably require a very
> powerful console to actually be any good though. Dungeon Keeper on the
> PC managed a similar feat, but to a small scale, you had a dungeon
> full of monsters (who fought for you) but you could also go into 1st
> person mode and attack the people individually.
>
> The game would be a mixture of Dungeon Keeper, Age of Empires and
> Dynasty Warriors. Another interesting idea would be to use the Dynasty
> Warriors engine to recreate Lord of the Rings battles (the Dynasty
> Warriors engine can manage around 1000 people on the map and 30 on
> screen).
you know what im on about, why dont they make games like this?
Page: