The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
some sence at last, some one sees my view, you eather have a third person fighter an stratagy game were you control armys or a RGP like final fantsy for the grafics.
LL Cool TT wrote:
> morbo wrote:
> you want a game were you conrtrol one guy, and have 1000s of people
> fighting under your control at the same time. if you can even set up
> a
> control system for that i would call it to complicated, as you have
> to
> keep an eye on the battle and you own charcter or you die. think
> about
> all you stipulations.
>
> I agree. You can't really have all this stuff in one game without it
> losing the arcade atmosphere and style that you appear to want. You'd
> have to lose some of the stuff, or be prepared to make sacrifices of
> other kinds.
It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys in huge braveheart type battles.
> morbo wrote:
> you want a game were you conrtrol one guy, and have 1000s of people
> fighting under your control at the same time. if you can even set up
> a
> control system for that i would call it to complicated, as you have
> to
> keep an eye on the battle and you own charcter or you die. think
> about
> all you stipulations.
>
> I agree. You can't really have all this stuff in one game without it
> losing the arcade atmosphere and style that you appear to want. You'd
> have to lose some of the stuff, or be prepared to make sacrifices of
> other kinds.
It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys in huge braveheart type battles.
Zhuge Liang wrote:
>
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys in
> huge braveheart type battles.
crazy you would end up having to fight the whole 1000 man army by your self as your chartitors will be stupid just to make it harder. and you might kill one of your own fighters acidently then your army turs against you for betrail, ending up in and fight were you take on 1000-2000 men alone. fool.
>
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys in
> huge braveheart type battles.
crazy you would end up having to fight the whole 1000 man army by your self as your chartitors will be stupid just to make it harder. and you might kill one of your own fighters acidently then your army turs against you for betrail, ending up in and fight were you take on 1000-2000 men alone. fool.
If you ever played dynasty warriors it would be simlar, but not crap like that was, with the new stuff i mentioned (not controlling ur own troops) and without the crap stuff (like magic).
Zhuge Liang wrote:
> - Why does no company try to make somthing origional like this?
Meh. You've just said that you would take things from lots of different games, and put them in one. Yeah, one hell of an original game! What i would really like is game like Frontline, but with actual events from history, and accurate ones at that. In the first level on Frontline, you're on the beach and you can hide in the bomb craters. One problemo. The planes should have bombed the beach, but they didn't. Alot of the missions on Frontline got a tad boring as well, so some different sceneries, rather than just the cramped places that they had. And, as a multi-player mode, i'd like to see it like this:
- You select your area, and whether you are German or English.
- You are put on one side of the level, and your friend or the CPU is put on the other side.
- You both have 10 men, not including yourself. you decide where to put these men, and decide whether they follow you are stay put.
- Either you or the other side have to get to you're base, steal your flag and take it back to your/their base.
Yes, it is a copy of capture the flag, but i think it would be cool, placing your people and all.
> - Why does no company try to make somthing origional like this?
Meh. You've just said that you would take things from lots of different games, and put them in one. Yeah, one hell of an original game! What i would really like is game like Frontline, but with actual events from history, and accurate ones at that. In the first level on Frontline, you're on the beach and you can hide in the bomb craters. One problemo. The planes should have bombed the beach, but they didn't. Alot of the missions on Frontline got a tad boring as well, so some different sceneries, rather than just the cramped places that they had. And, as a multi-player mode, i'd like to see it like this:
- You select your area, and whether you are German or English.
- You are put on one side of the level, and your friend or the CPU is put on the other side.
- You both have 10 men, not including yourself. you decide where to put these men, and decide whether they follow you are stay put.
- Either you or the other side have to get to you're base, steal your flag and take it back to your/their base.
Yes, it is a copy of capture the flag, but i think it would be cool, placing your people and all.
Zhuge Liang wrote:
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys in
> huge braveheart type battles.
But then it's virtually 1000 on one, which would either be incredibly easy or shockingly difficult, depending on the difficulty level. Just by having people 'on your side' wouldn't mean that they would save you, as in such a melee, they would be looking out for themselves, wouldn't they? Or are you the leader of the group? I admit, it could be interesting, but it seems a little difficult to get right, with there being so many different elements to it and such.
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys in
> huge braveheart type battles.
But then it's virtually 1000 on one, which would either be incredibly easy or shockingly difficult, depending on the difficulty level. Just by having people 'on your side' wouldn't mean that they would save you, as in such a melee, they would be looking out for themselves, wouldn't they? Or are you the leader of the group? I admit, it could be interesting, but it seems a little difficult to get right, with there being so many different elements to it and such.
morbo wrote:
> Zhuge Liang wrote:
>
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys
> in
> huge braveheart type battles.
>
> crazy you would end up having to fight the whole 1000 man army by your
> self as your chartitors will be stupid just to make it harder. and you
> might kill one of your own fighters acidently then your army turs
> against you for betrail, ending up in and fight were you take on
> 1000-2000 men alone. fool.
Comon obvoiusly there would be a no friendly fire duja, i havn't mentioned that much detail, use your imagination based on the ideas i have given and that would be it
> Zhuge Liang wrote:
>
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys
> in
> huge braveheart type battles.
>
> crazy you would end up having to fight the whole 1000 man army by your
> self as your chartitors will be stupid just to make it harder. and you
> might kill one of your own fighters acidently then your army turs
> against you for betrail, ending up in and fight were you take on
> 1000-2000 men alone. fool.
Comon obvoiusly there would be a no friendly fire duja, i havn't mentioned that much detail, use your imagination based on the ideas i have given and that would be it
the game you have discribe is just good bits from good games, but no matter how hard you try you still will not be able to mix them together sucsessfully. it is just not posible.
LL Cool TT wrote:
> Zhuge Liang wrote:
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys
> in
> huge braveheart type battles.
>
> But then it's virtually 1000 on one, which would either be incredibly
> easy or shockingly difficult, depending on the difficulty level. Just
> by having people 'on your side' wouldn't mean that they would save
> you, as in such a melee, they would be looking out for themselves,
> wouldn't they? Or are you the leader of the group? I admit, it could
> be interesting, but it seems a little difficult to get right, with
> there being so many different elements to it and such.
There could be a really advanced AI like in ghost recon (maybe not that good), but customisable by the makers, or player, for each difficulty setting. And although it has components from other games, no game has been made independantly like this, so it would be origional. Plus there wouldn't be just battles, there could also be a separate rpg control set up, separated by fmv sequences as you would progress throuhg the REALISTIC story.
> Zhuge Liang wrote:
> It would have onimusha controls, and one would fight along side
> 1000's, not under your control, and fight against 1000's of ai guys
> in
> huge braveheart type battles.
>
> But then it's virtually 1000 on one, which would either be incredibly
> easy or shockingly difficult, depending on the difficulty level. Just
> by having people 'on your side' wouldn't mean that they would save
> you, as in such a melee, they would be looking out for themselves,
> wouldn't they? Or are you the leader of the group? I admit, it could
> be interesting, but it seems a little difficult to get right, with
> there being so many different elements to it and such.
There could be a really advanced AI like in ghost recon (maybe not that good), but customisable by the makers, or player, for each difficulty setting. And although it has components from other games, no game has been made independantly like this, so it would be origional. Plus there wouldn't be just battles, there could also be a separate rpg control set up, separated by fmv sequences as you would progress throuhg the REALISTIC story.
morbo wrote:
> the game you have discribe is just good bits from good games, but no
> matter how hard you try you still will not be able to mix them
> together sucsessfully. it is just not posible.
Back in the days of 'pong' people didn't think you would be able to have a game without two rectangles and a square, now look at fronline!!!
Anything is possible, and problems can be overcome, its only down to the inspiration envolved if they are not!
> the game you have discribe is just good bits from good games, but no
> matter how hard you try you still will not be able to mix them
> together sucsessfully. it is just not posible.
Back in the days of 'pong' people didn't think you would be able to have a game without two rectangles and a square, now look at fronline!!!
Anything is possible, and problems can be overcome, its only down to the inspiration envolved if they are not!
Page: