Video Game Ideas

[Fenn]

Good point Clockhand. My point, though, was that perhaps devs need to stop pushing for teamwork when most players frankly don't want it.

But well is not my job to gave ideas or fix problems, is just to play games and see if they work or not.

But, but...its the video game ideas thread...

[Arashi500]

I just think the mentality of the majority needs to change. By making lone wolfing extremely beneficial then people who are best at, and enjoy supporting roles get pushed aside completely. where as not doing anything will make the same problems persist. And as long as we make games revolving around teamwork without changing the mentality, those games will flop.

[ClockHand]

I say there are 2 ways to work this. The passive doing multiplayer options (you can choose to play both team work or lone wolf) or the aggressive where you just take away the lone wolf type game and do only team work.

Devs need to take away options for the players, if I gave the option to play one of those, players are obviously going to play alone (most people play games alone), but if I force them to play as a team, then the players have no option to adapt their mentalities (I force adaptation).

Now, this is a radical concept and no company would do that, because its mean they are going to sell less. So what they can do is use the Halo credits or a reward system (that doesn't affect the balance in the game). You gave exclusive challenges to the team work type of game, which gave more points to the players to level up and trade stuffs for their characters (again, doesn't affect game balance), this motivate hardcore gamers to play as a team and not as a lone wolf.

The devs need to: A) do a team work base games that can be flexible and friendly (important, because you don't want to be blamed for losing, and neither having to do complex tactics), B) force players to adapt their mentalities (don't gave players the option, motivate them to the option you want them to chose) and C) make players to stay in game (motivate players to keep playing to the end).


Aya@ Yeah, I have also won matches against teams. But as I said, unless your opponents are retarded is pretty impossible to win against a team playing alone.

[Nyarlathotep]

Bad Company 2 rewards people for doing a lot of team-based things - spotting enemies, healing people, repairing stuff ... and if you perform an action for a squad member, then you get double points. Very often medics and engineers with not all that many kills will lead the team in points... Not a bad system, though 80 points for a Squad Revive is ridiculous and seriously stop bringing me back to live I WANT TO DIE!

[Delphinus]

Or you could make the game realistic enough that a single bullet sends you into shock/kills you instead of using a regenerating health meter. The only way to survive would be to stick to the group.

[Fenn]

I say there are 2 ways to work this. The passive doing multiplayer options (you can choose to play both team work or lone wolf) or the aggressive where you just take away the lone wolf type game and do only team work.

Devs need to take away options for the players, if I gave the option to play one of those, players are obviously going to play alone (most people play games alone), but if I force them to play as a team, then the players have no option to adapt their mentalities (I force adaptation).

Now, this is a radical concept and no company would do that, because its mean they are going to sell less. So what they can do is use the Halo credits or a reward system (that doesn't affect the balance in the game). You gave exclusive challenges to the team work type of game, which gave more points to the players to level up and trade stuffs for their characters (again, doesn't affect game balance), this motivate hardcore gamers to play as a team and not as a lone wolf.

The devs need to: A) do a team work base games that can be flexible and friendly (important, because you don't want to be blamed for losing, and neither having to do complex tactics), B) force players to adapt their mentalities (don't gave players the option, motivate them to the option you want them to chose) and C) make players to stay in game (motivate players to keep playing to the end).


Aya@ Yeah, I have also won matches against teams. But as I said, unless your opponents are retarded is pretty impossible to win against a team playing alone.

That's not fair to the majority. Listen to the logic you just posed: Most people want to be lone wolves, but because a minority of team-based gamers want everyone to play using teamwork, we need to change the mentality of everyone else so they play the way we want them to.

How does that make sense? I'm not even suggesting to get rid of online shooters that promote teamwork. I'm saying that if so many people want to play like lone wolves, all it would take is one or two online shooters which cater to this individualist mentality to get them out of the teamwork gamer's hair.

Or you could make the game realistic enough that a single bullet sends you into shock/kills you instead of using a regenerating health meter. The only way to survive would be to stick to the group.

I've been thinking of a similar idea where damage is based on the affected body part. Legs slow your movement, arms throw off your aim, stomach causes you to flinch/fall, and headshot kills. In addition, you take bleeding damage which, if not treated, will kill you. It would make for some cool moments online:

"Damn! My knee!"
"Crawl to cover! I have a medic kit. Someone give me suppressing fire!"

I also think there is too little fear of death in these games. I was thinking of a world wide war server with a queue system. You enter into the queue and then go into unranked matchmaking with whichever faction you are on. When a space is available in the battle, the next person in line gets dropped into the war. If you die, you have to go to the end of the queue. Maybe then people will actually want to use teamwork. Camping would be an issue though.

[ClockHand]

Is not unfair actually, because if you don't like it you don't play it, if you like you do and if you are neutral you might like it or not (depending if the game is good). And also you need to think that this is a strategy used by companies, is not like I'm being anti-ethic, I'm just stating a strategy that is always used (remove the option for the consumers, and force them to what it left to sell).

If you want a one shot kill game play AA. It's a realistic game, this mean no over jumps, over speed, over endurance or anything that is beyond human capability. This force skills in the players but also makes the game extremely boring (if you don't like to die and have to wait to the next round).

[doghateburger]

there should be a game, where you are a zombie, and you have to eat the entire worlds brain to return back to human. that would be epic. I can only imagine the ending....
"NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I ATE THEM ALLLLL!!!!!"

[Sylux]

Hey I have a cool game idea okay here goes well you can make your character's face and give him a first name but everyone will call you by your predestined last name or your military rank okay and you can also pick your character path right and you go explore space and scan planets in other systems for like gas and minerals and stuff and sometimes you can land on terrestrial planets and hey sometimes their moons haha know what I mean.

there should be a game, where you are a zombie, and you have to eat the entire worlds brain to return back to human. that would be epic. I can only imagine the ending....
"NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! I ATE THEM ALLLLL!!!!!"

My idea puts you mommy to shame. Good idea, actually, but there would be almost zero conflict, since you're just fighting humans. Unless you're battling other zombies or specially mutated infecteds for supremacy and the right to human life once again. But then, at the ending, wouldn't another zombie just eat you, the last human, become a human, be eaten by a third zombie who then transforms into a human again like a giant zombie Beauty and the Beast party?

[Nyarlathotep]

I've been thinking of a similar idea where damage is based on the affected body part. Legs slow your movement, arms throw off your aim, stomach causes you to flinch/fall, and headshot kills. In addition, you take bleeding damage which, if not treated, will kill you. It would make for some cool moments online:

"Damn! My knee!"
"Crawl to cover! I have a medic kit. Someone give me suppressing fire!"

I think Arma II incorporates location-based damage, but Arma II is reaaaallly boring. Too bad.

Project Reality,a realism mod for Battlefield 2, has a similar system, though, but it doesn't do location-based wounding (though a headshot will make you unrevivable).