Video Games You Wish Existed

[Quirk]

So basically Pikmen + Minecraft.

Is good.

[MaskedClaus]

I want a game like Spelunky, but from a top-down perspective.

[Quirk]

I want a game like Spelunky, but from a top-down perspective.

But then you would miss out on the vertical element. I don't see how that'd work.

[MaskedClaus]

It would be a little like playing the 2d Zeldas, with randomly generated levels and treasure hunting.

[-Benedict]

So basically Pikmen + Minecraft.

Is good.

The problem I'd see with Minecraft's mechanics in such a game would be the inability to really up the scale as you go on. No matter how well-equipped you are in Minecraft, you can really only reasonably manage one thing at a time in first person, and the block-by-block building would quickly grow tiresome as you try to expand. A top-down perspective like Pikmin's would probably be more appropriate, with the building reduced to, say, placing a blueprint region on the ground and having your workforce do the real construction- a horde of Pikmin, maybe, or alternatively you could find and recruit other survivors from the crash as you go on. Maybe the game would start with you believing you and a few others were the only survivors, but it turns out that the rest of, say, the colony ship's inhabitants had survived. Exploration would be rewarded both with rare resources and with the discovery of additional labor.

man there are so many idea i have about this alien world survivalist game, i gotta make them all be a thing

@MaskedClaus: So, kind of like the expanded version of Minicraft Notch is developing?

[MaskedClaus]

@MaskedClaus: So, kind of like the expanded version of Minicraft Notch is developing?

I didn't know about Minicraft, but yeah, something similar to that.

[Kíeros]

I know: Scribblenauts with no illegal words.

Want a Batmobile? Bottle of Vodka? 1-Up Mushroom? Sure, go on ahead.

[Varkarrus]

A game where you are given a blank slate, and when you type something in, it happens. Complete with an omniscient (but not rebellious-- or even emotional) AI to parse your every whim into machine code.

H.A.M (the game I made), except remade professionally by indie game developers with online support.

A game that plays sorta like Binding of Isaac, except as you wander along you find procedurally generated guns. (This is actually a game I was thinking of programming, but I'm too lazy to start it :*( )

An MMORPG that plays like one of the top-down LoZ games, except more 3d.

Evil Genius 2

[Quirk]

I know: Scribblenauts with no illegal words.

Want a Batmobile? Bottle of Vodka? 1-Up Mushroom? Sure, go on ahead.

Even better. Scibblenauts with verbs.

[Kuraimano]

Wew, big question.

I'd have a lot of ideas, one of which I am trying to actually make into a videogame by myself, but apart from that, at the moment nothing comes into my mind!

I remember talking with a friend of mine some time ago about how cool it would be to have a game very similar to Left 4 Dead (maybe even an actual clone, gameplay-wise) with the only difference being that the game would call the zombies "Ghouls" and that there would be boss battles against the vampire(s) that turned all of the population into brainless blood suckers. By vampire I mean some sentient, charming and strong guy with superhuman strenght and speed and all that shit. Victorian style setting and/or weapons and actual "staking the vampire in his heart" strategy were also among the possible ideas, the only thing that bothers me about this idea is firstly, what to replace the special infected with (they are essential, ghouls-only is no fun of course) and secondly how do you make four humans fight an overpowered smuggy vampire prince and make it a "realistic" balanced fight. I'd hate to do a class based thing, there's too many of them, but maybe just one member of the group needs to be a priest, protected by the other three during the whole campaign only to act as a vampire-weakener at the end. Or something.

[kholhaus]

I want Littlebigplanet 3, but in 3-d. Too bad MM dropped LBP after the 2nd one.

[DecidedlyDevious]

You know what? I would actually like a video game based off of GURPS rules. Or even just a program that let you make your campaigns and play them on the computer with friends, kind of like how NWN let you GM your own campaigns and control all of the NPCs while others played the PCs

[Superfrequency]

There is no need for using numbers as health.

Except that is works as an abstract gameplay element a lot better than specific injury does. Taking a shot to the foot and being unable to run isn't fun. Things like that just slow the game down and needlessly complicate it. I think there was an Extra Credits on this.

taking advantage of giant monsters to help build things or overcome obstacles

This does sound fun, but if I were making the game I would want to emphasize the fear or being trapped on a hostile planet with nobody to help you. So most of the wildlife would either run or attack you.

[Chirality]

A game with a non-hitpoint-based health mechanic.

We've gone way past the age where hardware limited us to using NUMBERS as HEALTH, yet still every single new game does that! There is no need for using numbers as health.
Shot a foot? The foot is now unusable for standing and causing incredible pain. Shooting a foot does not make a number go down.
Shooting a head makes a person dead. It isn't that hard to remember, it even rhymes! Shooting a head does NOT make a number go down but with a bonus.
However, shooting a metal plate makes a dent in the metal plate. It will stop small projectiles from getting through it. Therefore giving armour a use that doesn't involve a slightly higher number to go down.

I think the reason the industry isn't incorporating these ideas is because they'd have to get rid of their scantily-clad ladies and give them *shock* CLOTHES!

The problem behind that is that no matter where you get shot on your body, you're pretty much going to die from blood loss unless you have immediate medical assistance available. In reality, people aim for the abdomen because they have a higher chance of hitting their target.

I wouldn't really like to play a game where getting hit once anywhere severely cripples or kills me. Unless that's, say, the game mechanic of an infiltration/espionage game.

It would make a pretty boring multiplayer experience as well.

[Softspoken]

As a possible mechanic for the construction of structures on an alien planet: your ship's computer possesses either all or a large range of schematics that detail how to build these survival utilities. However, you can't possibly build it single-handedly, nor can your workers possibly understand the schematics. So your computer can spend cycles converting schematics into instructions your new friends / slave labour can understand. Cycles are used up over time, with more advanced structures requiring more time. So it adds an element of surviving long enough to get that next vital life-support apparatus.

I bring this up because somebody mentioned progression mechanics, and I like to throw ideas like that around.

[Superfrequency]

The way I'd do it is you'd have a supply of air and food for a few months, and just enough materials for a basic shelter. You'd have to dismantle the life support systems of your ship to convert a local gas seep into air. With science. Your resources would start to run out at the end of the first year and you'd have to make long, dangerous treks to establish outposts. Also the toxicity of plant species would be randomized on each playthrough and the only way to find out if they are harmful is to eat them or wait several days for your computer to analyze them. Somehow I'd have to prevent savescumming. Maybe always randomized until you save after determining whether or not they're edible and a set number of them are and aren't.

And no animal friends! Pikmin only in the being stranded on a toxic alien world thing.

[Reecer6]

A game where you built buildings for clients. And also demolished them.
ALL IN 1ST PERSON.

[MythicalWashrag]

A game with a non-hitpoint-based health mechanic.

We've gone way past the age where hardware limited us to using NUMBERS as HEALTH, yet still every single new game does that! There is no need for using numbers as health.
Shot a foot? The foot is now unusable for standing and causing incredible pain. Shooting a foot does not make a number go down.
Shooting a head makes a person dead. It isn't that hard to remember, it even rhymes! Shooting a head does NOT make a number go down but with a bonus.
However, shooting a metal plate makes a dent in the metal plate. It will stop small projectiles from getting through it. Therefore giving armour a use that doesn't involve a slightly higher number to go down.

I love this. And as I expected, it's not for everybody. The game would be brutal and unforgiving (in my mind). At that point, one slip-up could kill you. Superfrequency certainly has a point in that it wouldn't be fun for a lot of people.
However, I think it would be a blast. Yeah, the game could be slow-paced. It could be complicated. And it may be hard to implement successfully, especially in a shooter.

As far as a multiplayer experience (if it's even necessary to have one): I don't think it would be bad. If it was something like an MMO, yeah, probably. But for like a versus sort of mode? You drop almost immediately after being in someone's sights in FPS games like CoD. In Mount and Blade, being killed in one hit with a crossbow or greatsword isn't even uncommon. And they're still fun to a lot of people.

But I see the points Super and Chirality are making, even if my personal tastes disagree. I'd love to play a realistic game where if I get a gash in my leg, I walk with a limp. Maybe I'm just weird? SHRUG.

I think the reason the industry isn't incorporating these ideas is because they'd have to get rid of their scantily-clad ladies and give them *shock* CLOTHES!

My gog.

[Dentrala]

Here's a concept is abstract enough it can be put in nearly any setting. Fantasy, cowboys, spaceships, alien planets, mafia for all I care. I'll just use abstract terms like "stronghold" and "crafting" and "ingredients" and "monsters".

Maybe you could call it Fiefdom.

Abstract: A non-pvp MMORPG where you can build (Somewhere in-between Minecraft and castle-building games, so something like building a room wouldn't take hours) anywhere in an open world by crafting using ingredients, mostly based off of monster drops. However, there is incessant wilderness danger and no cities, so all shelter is provided by players who are essentially working to build "strongholds" with the most wealth, benefits and influence. High-level benefits/items would be made by using not only a few high-level drops, but copious amounts of low-level drops, and so the came would revolve around the concept of high-level players needing to "employ" lower-level players, and low-level players depending on high-level players to get ahead.

Quests would essentially all be coming from other players. If there was constant wilderness danger that could harm "strongholds", protection would be added initiative to join a stronghold. If a high-level player who is running one of these "strongholds" wants to keep consistent labor and continued patronage, they must invest in things that will benefit their own people of the stronghold, ie walls, NPC guards, NPCs that can buff employees, vaults/banking systems, standard armories etc. Essentially, the key would be that only incredibly influential and wealthy players (or coalitions of players) could afford to sustain strongholds in areas where the wilderness danger was high. Low-level players would have to balance continuing income from their employer with saving up to attempt to start their own settlement/watchtower/whatever. If they wanted, they could be a solo player, maybe doing freelance or relying on trading wilderness drops, but the very concept of drifters/hermits would add to the diverse mix.

The concept of "protection" would expand a lot further than a bunch of people you like to adventure with - When you are logged off, you literally just sleep, and are still killable in-game. Wanderers would need to find and reinforce caves, strongholds could generate currency with inns, or choose to build dormitories for their patrons. It would certainly add significance to the traditional "Guild Ranks" - better benefits for better patrons. It would add realism: The head of a stronghold could not micromanage everything, and would need to appoint other players to run the stronghold, ie dealing with recruitment, crafting to make sure that the armories are stocked (or assigning quests to get ingredients to build said armory), managing the stronghold's general business at times when the main player is typically logged off. Mid-level players would perfectly fit this niche - when Trustworthiness is a commodity, it's not necessarily the greediest people who get ahead.

Cooperation between strongholds could also be a thing. If building is mostly based on monster-drop ingredients and different ingredients are only found in certain areas, it would be the most economically viable to trade a few commodities between strongholds for mutual prosperity - patrons could be traders, transporting boxes (the builder of the box would specify who could open it) to and fro strongholds, making their living based on fees and fighting monsters in-between. It'd be a low-level quest, but not something you would trust to someone who you think might die halfway there. If you want your stronghold to run based mostly on trading, you would invest in perhaps roads, or signs, to accelerate travel.

Shame that stronghold wars would be impossible, because if players could sabotage other players' buildings... Well, nobody would build anything I guess. In terms of "claiming turf": maybe a "benefit" would be that players could craft NPC monsters/fighters/guards/whateva in immediate areas who are clearly indicated as belonging to a certain player/stronghold (Expanding on the idea of delegating power to mid-level players to build watchtowers) who are programmed to attack anyone who builds there. That way you couldn't deliberately destroy any construct, but you could prevent new ones from being made.

The biggest issue is that you couldn't get anywhere if you were playing casually (well granted this is most mmorpg's), and that you would need a large player-base to even get started.

Next biggest issue is that it would be impossible to balance. Economy vs Wilderness threat for the need of improving/restricting the player expansion rate. Urban sprawl I guess would be dealt with by having multiple servers, essentially creating an Archipelago of whatever construct you use. (planet/island/province) Adding new "islands" would be easy enough, and you just need to make sure each island is self-sustainable in resources to try and avoid too much weight in any server.

Anyways, my thoughts.

[Reecer6]

I'd totally play this super-realistic game. As long as it took place in not medieval times.

[ArmsAreLoud]

Darkstalkers 4

[Namboto]

I don't know if anyone has brought it up yet, but I'd really like a sequel to TWEWY. Or just another game set in that universe, because seriously TWEWY was amazing.

[-Benedict]

Whoa, Dentrala's idea is pretty cool. One way to easily balance player expansion possibilities would be to set the game on a literal archipelago of islands. Most of the wilderness and questing areas would be underwater, or on uninhabitable volcanic/mountainous islands. Players could conceivably build or find rudimentary underwater shelters in the field, but real expansion and settlement would have to take place on land. The game world can be scaled and generated to complement the placement of stronghold-viable islands, imposing direct constraints on urban sprawl.

Alternatively (or additionally), the wilderness could feature huge boss instances that roam around and destroy public buildings. Those or other natural disasters would result in an equilibrium of construction, defense and repair that would keep a stronghold's operations running indefinitely. Destroyer behaviors or frequency could diminish as the game is updated, adding more high-level content for large strongholds and raising the bar for what to reach for. By putting AI in charge of sabotaging buildings, rather than players, you can dodge the griefing/pvp problem while maintaining a real and present threat for players to fight against.

man i have to stop reading this thread, i am getting depressed about all these sweet ideas that might never become things

[Dentrala]

I'd totally play this super-realistic game. As long as it took place in not medieval times.

Amen brother.

Whoa, Dentrala's idea is pretty cool. One way to easily balance player expansion possibilities would be to set the game on a literal archipelago of islands. Most of the wilderness and questing areas would be underwater, or on uninhabitable volcanic/mountainous islands. Players could conceivably build or find rudimentary underwater shelters in the field, but real expansion and settlement would have to take place on land. The game world can be scaled and generated to complement the placement of stronghold-viable islands, imposing direct constraints on urban sprawl.

Alternatively (or additionally), the wilderness could feature huge boss instances that roam around and destroy public buildings. Those or other natural disasters would result in an equilibrium of construction, defense and repair that would keep a stronghold's operations running indefinitely. Destroyer behaviors or frequency could diminish as the game is updated, adding more high-level content for large strongholds and raising the bar for what to reach for. By putting AI in charge of sabotaging buildings, rather than players, you can dodge the griefing/pvp problem while maintaining a real and present threat for players to fight against.

man i have to stop reading this thread, i am getting depressed about all these sweet ideas that might never become things

Thanks, and that archipelago idea is actually a fantastic idea that would solve a lot of rudimentary issues. Cool thoughts. I was thinking about the boss incidents, but I think they'd work out best if they were moderately predictable so that players would have to physically involve themselves in the fray.

[weirdguy]

I'm baffled that this doesn't already exist because it seems so obvious: A game where you play as a shapeshifter who can imitate his enemies. Could be a Western RPG or a platformer (whereby it'd probably turn into a hack-and-slash with a great deal of variety), or could be an Eastern RPG (whereby it'd probably end up being a pokemon-like thing where you "collect" forms to shift into, either by killing enemies or just by meeting them). Could even be a Metal Gear-style stealth game. Shit has all kinds of potential is what I'm saying.

The closest approximations I've seen are FFTA (where shapeshifters are a difficult-to-use and sort of lame gimmick class), and some Xbox game where you were limited to about six different forms. It'd take a great deal of extra production effort to be able to transform into all (or most) of the creatures featured in a typical kill-the-monsters game, but it'd be such a powerful selling point that I can see one of the big game studios taking that risk. And intuitively it feels like it could turn into a completely horrible game-design clusterfuck, but having given it a lot of thought, I can see a lot of ways to turn it into a workable game. So, yeah, kind of bizarre that this doesn't exist yet.

Game called Prototype where you can 'absorb' victims to take on their appearance.

Wait, yall already mentioned that

I want a game in which the first half of the game is spent conquering the land, and then the second half is playing as a hero who has to free the land from your aforementioned tyranny. This second half would be heavily affected by how you completed the first half.

super huge concept post

Have you seen Haven and Hearth?

You don't have to play it, it's pretty cool, but the combat system is so contrived that it makes you want to punch something, except that it takes forever to figure out how to punch something.

I don't even think I need to state the name of the game.

YOU KNOW.

This is my ringtone.