The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
what you are discribing now sounds like lots of work just for one battle, sorting out each individulal troop with orders, personaly i wopuld rather take one 1000 to one than sit there for an hour arranging troops for a 5 min battle. you would be bored in minutes
morbo wrote:
> what you are discribing now sounds like lots of work just for one
> battle, sorting out each individulal troop with orders, personaly i
> wopuld rather take one 1000 to one than sit there for an hour
> arranging troops for a 5 min battle. you would be bored in minutes
I suggest you read some of my messages below, i already said it wouldn't just be a battle, and that YOU DONT CONTROL YOUR OWN MEN, they do there own thing, and dont comment on the AI i mentioned it before.
> what you are discribing now sounds like lots of work just for one
> battle, sorting out each individulal troop with orders, personaly i
> wopuld rather take one 1000 to one than sit there for an hour
> arranging troops for a 5 min battle. you would be bored in minutes
I suggest you read some of my messages below, i already said it wouldn't just be a battle, and that YOU DONT CONTROL YOUR OWN MEN, they do there own thing, and dont comment on the AI i mentioned it before.
and as i have said the AI of your allies will be about half of your foes. your opersition will just use some sort of pincer attack and slauyghter you as you said you only control one charcter, not the army so like i said your idea is flawed at the foundations, it will never be sucsessfull due to it being such a stupid idea in the first place.
Area of play 1 ----- a huge world that you unlock as you progress through the story like in ffx
Area of play 2 ----- interactive characters on an rpg sort of background, like onimusha 2
Area of play 3 ----- big events in the story ie, battles have separate platforms and control systems.
Each would be separated by fmv sequences and loading.
If a disc doesn't have enough space, have 4-5 for the game.
Plus all i mentioned before and other details that would be too spacific to mention, ie difficulty settings or AI.
Area of play 2 ----- interactive characters on an rpg sort of background, like onimusha 2
Area of play 3 ----- big events in the story ie, battles have separate platforms and control systems.
Each would be separated by fmv sequences and loading.
If a disc doesn't have enough space, have 4-5 for the game.
Plus all i mentioned before and other details that would be too spacific to mention, ie difficulty settings or AI.
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).
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).
morbo wrote:
> and as i have said the AI of your allies will be about half of your
> foes. your opersition will just use some sort of pincer attack and
> slauyghter you as you said you only control one charcter, not the army
> so like i said your idea is flawed at the foundations, it will never
> be sucsessfull due to it being such a stupid idea in the first place.
I think your running out of ideas to critisize, as i have explained all the ones you have said so far. i think u whish u had the idea, and are very 1 dimensional if you think somthing is impossible. It may be unlikely now because develipers think we want to see stupid cartoon characters collecting coins or stupid magic based rpgs or a shooter like the 7 octillion that have alredy been relaesed, we only buy them cause there is nothin else.
> and as i have said the AI of your allies will be about half of your
> foes. your opersition will just use some sort of pincer attack and
> slauyghter you as you said you only control one charcter, not the army
> so like i said your idea is flawed at the foundations, it will never
> be sucsessfull due to it being such a stupid idea in the first place.
I think your running out of ideas to critisize, as i have explained all the ones you have said so far. i think u whish u had the idea, and are very 1 dimensional if you think somthing is impossible. It may be unlikely now because develipers think we want to see stupid cartoon characters collecting coins or stupid magic based rpgs or a shooter like the 7 octillion that have alredy been relaesed, we only buy them cause there is nothin else.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Page: