Search Unity

  1. Unity 2019.2 is now released.
    Dismiss Notice

Someone please make this game!

Discussion in 'Game Design' started by samurai_saam, Jan 26, 2015.

  1. samurai_saam

    samurai_saam

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Posts:
    3
    I have an idea and I know I won't be any good at making the game. There have been a few first person shooter/ real time strategy hybrids made but I would really like to see a game made that had a similar look and feel to Empire Earth. A game where you can quickly switch between commanding everyone from above to looking through the eyes of any unit you choose, whether it is a simple worker or an infantry man or even a tank or robot. In this game you would advance through the ages, just like Empire Earth, starting in the stone age and working your way through time. Key features that I believe should be implemented are as follows:

    -Multiplayer (local & online)
    -Singleplayer campaign
    -Unit upgrades (Ex: Infantry man can be upgraded to Elite infantry man or something)
    -Weapon upgrades (Ex: Infantry machine gun upgraded to improve accuracy)
    -Ability to create squads while in first person
    -As worker, can perform various tasks to improve overall economy of your team (Ex: mine stone/iron/gold or hunt/farm for food)
    -Wildlife to hunt
    -Ability to enter any building in first person
    -Drive-able Vehicles
    -Hardcore mode option

    Note that the above list is merely a suggestion and not set in stone. They are simply things I believe would make the game very fun. All I would like if this game is made, is a copy of it!


    P.S. if there is a game like this already out there that I haven't found, please tell me!
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  2. elmar1028

    elmar1028

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Posts:
    2,174
    Call of Duty Black Ops 2 had identical mechanic. You could control your units from above and then play as one of them. Not multi player and no upgrades but concept is same.

    However it would be nice to have such features as a standalone game especially upgrades and drivable vehicles :D
     
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  3. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,431
    This has been done multiple times. Its never really worked.

    The problem is always getting the balance right. Its either the strategy is more important, and first person is just a gimmick. Or the first person is so overpowered that it hardly makes sense to do the strategy side of it.
     
  4. Mikenseer

    Mikenseer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Posts:
    66
    What if its multiplayer. Each unit (or most units) are players. The commander (RTS) is a player. When he has enough resources to spawn a new unit, it opens up a slot in that server and someone in "Play Now!" queue who has selected he would be okay with playing that particular unit, gets loaded in.

    Could limit players to combat only units.

    Could be a cool PvP game at like 100 +1vs100 +1 players, since a game of starcraft caps at ~100+ units per player, this could potentially work.

    Starcraft and BF2 have a baby.

    Would probs take a AAA studio and $$$ to pull it off due to balance issues and needing a sizable community from the get go.
     
  5. Devastadus

    Devastadus

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Posts:
    33
    Mikenseer, the game you described is battlefield 4 multiplayer, one person can be the commander tell the players where to attack, launch drones, shoot scuds, drop supplies. If the players capture a point, the commander gains additional powers.

    Only problem is playing the commander is that it just feels dull, the only fun part is shooting the scuds every 3 minutes or so if you have the ability but besides that, You don't feel like you have to much of an impact.
     
  6. Mikenseer

    Mikenseer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Posts:
    66
    Similar to BF4, but not. It needs more RTS elements to keep the commander interested. The commander needs to matter, more so than just gimmicky powers of drones and such.

    Bring in elements from a simple RTS like Starcraft. Now you have spawn locations which are specific to the "classes" the players choose (i.e. baracks, factory, starport, etc.)

    You could have players who don't like combat choosing to take a role of gatherer. Mining minerals underground, scavenging after a battle, etc. Boosting resource gains.

    BF4 is a poor example of mixing RTS and FPS gameplay. But it is the most relevant at the moment.
     
  7. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,431
    Trouble becomes as you emphasise the strategy elements, then the individual actions of the FPS player become less important.

    Every noted that FPS games tend to put the player as a super soldier that dominates the battle field and determines the course of the war? Ever played an FPS where the idea was "Stand in formation with a bunch of other guys. Wait for orders. Run forward when ordered. Then run left."

    I'm not saying it can't be done. Just that it is very difficult to get the balance right.
     
  8. Mikenseer

    Mikenseer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Posts:
    66
    This is precisely why once someone figures it out, we will have ourselves another hit.
    It's almost a formula for creating a "great" game. Take concept that seems impossible to get right... Get it right.
     
  9. DanSuperGP

    DanSuperGP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    383
    I'm of the opinion that the reason we haven't seen a good successful RTS-FPS hybrid is that the blend just doesn't work. The fun of an RTS and the fun of an FPS are so different that they're not really compatible.

    For sure, you know a lot of big name companies have tried at some point, and made prototypes, and discovered... like many indies... that the prototypes aren't fun enough to go to production.

    Just because both types can be fun doesn't mean a mashup will be.
     
  10. DanSuperGP

    DanSuperGP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    383
    Right... because people are going to be lining up to be the guy with no weapon's who's job is to click on rocks for a while, then walk to the harvester... then click on the rocks... until a player with the badass guns comes along and shoots them to a splatter.

    That stuff works in an RTS because nobody has to DO it... you just set up your little drones, and then you only have to pay attention to them when it matters because your enemy is trying to kill them to screw up your economy.
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  11. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    14,271
    Or someone already figured it out and it sucked. Not every combination is a good one and failed games rarely make it to a stage where companies hype them.
     
  12. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,431
    Its also a formula for some spectacular failures. Remember Spore?
     
    Gigiwoo likes this.
  13. Mikenseer

    Mikenseer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Posts:
    66
    But you guys are proving the point that it hasn't been done right yet. I'm not saying it ever will be, don't get me wrong.

    Minecraft anyone? Again, this game would have to be a perfect combination of so many features, it's nearer to impossible than not at this point.

    Also if you read my other post you'd know that I suggested roles such as gatherer could be left to NPC's.
    I find it much more interesting to figure out how you could do something instead of shooting down all the ideas. Just because we discuss how things could work, doesn't mean there are people lining up to do it. No need for a stream of naysayers on a threads meant for discussion. It helps no one, as in this case you aren't saving anyone from jumping into fires.

    But opinions are opinions, that's why they exist. So who am I to argue. We need both sides of the coin
     
  14. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    14,271
    You are saying it will with statements such as these. If you feel that it can be done right, go build a prototype and try it out. If it is enjoyable you'll have something to work from to build an actual game.
     
  15. Mikenseer

    Mikenseer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Posts:
    66
    What?
    I specifically said it may never be. You're twisting my words with a logical fallacy.

    Why focus more on the "no way" than to actually discuss something? What do you gain from posting in a thread about a particular topic and only saying "Nope" when the whole point is the discussion of "how"? Who cares if its possible or not, this is the internet of things.

    I guess I'm sorry to have started this little chain, unless there's someone who wishes to further this thread, go ahead and let it die.
     
  16. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    14,271
    The part of your statement that is throwing me off is that it "hasn't been done right yet". The word "yet" indicates to me that you believe it can be.
     
  17. samurai_saam

    samurai_saam

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Posts:
    3
    The game SavageXR (which is the only one of the Savage games I've played) is the closest to being the idea that is in my head. In that game there is the commander who only gets to play from a third person view and then there is everybody else. They are in charge of collecting resources when they feel like it and fighting the enemy. In that game you cannot play as both, you are either one or the other. In my mind I see a game where each person has their own team. They control an army, oversee the construction of their base and forge alliances with other players, much like Age of Empires and Empire Earth. However the difference would be that they have the option to take control of any one of their units at any given time. This would leave their base vulnerable as they would not be around to defend it as the commander, forcing the player to rely on being the commander as much as playing as a single unit. A player could play as the commander for the entire game if they so desired, the first person aspect is an option. This would keep FPS players who are really good from completely dominating on the battlefield, they would need to be an effective commander as well. I think that this would balance the RTS side and FPS side of the game. And thanks to all you guys (and gals) who are actually taking the time to post on my thread, I like to hear other peoples opinions. I think a game like this could be very popular and a load of fun, but thats just my opinion.
     
  18. samurai_saam

    samurai_saam

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Posts:
    3
    Thanks for the suggestion but I tried Black Ops 2 but it just wasn't what I was looking for! I really want a game where you can progress through the ages and I also want a little bit more complexity!
     
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  19. DanSuperGP

    DanSuperGP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    383
    Dungeon Keeper did basically that... forever and a day ago.

    Except.. the FPS view was useless. There was just no reason to do it at all because you were just a unit that could only do what that unit could do... which meant your individual contribution to battle wasn't much.

    Not fun, so nobody did it, except for the novelty of exploring your dungeon in first person mode.
     
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  20. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,431
    Actually if you attracted a powerful unit early in the game, you could take over FPS and do a totally disproportionate amount of damage to the enemy's early game harvester units. Switching back to the RTS mode then gave you a pretty easy run, as you had a good head start on your opponent. Ultimately this was exploiting the balance issues introduced by the RTS/FPS situation, rather then because the game was any more fun that way.

    Some tactical FPS games start to approach this from the other direction. Star wars battle front (the original) required capturing and controlling specific points on the map, somewhat approaching a strategy feel. Often it made sense to rack up deaths, as long as you could hold on to a specific strategic point. You could extend this out by making each of the control points a specific RTS style building, giving your faction a specific advantage. Imagine a FPS in a world controlled by an RTS AI. The buildings and resources you choose to protect or attack would have a direct effect on the success or failure of your fraction.
     
    GarBenjamin, Ryiah and DanSuperGP like this.
  21. CaoMengde777

    CaoMengde777

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Posts:
    813
    faces of war / men of war does it right, probably favorite game to play coop with buddies .. controlling RTS units directly, but its not first person, although first person would be really awesome in it, i suspect the main reason theres no first person, is the graphics would look really crap in first person (although that wouldnt deter me personally)
    men of war has some other problems, minor ones, but the mechanic here is done right
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  22. NeoTacticalGaming

    NeoTacticalGaming

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Posts:
    42
    Nuclear Dawn - FPS/RTS, Commander spawns resupply points resource Collection, research, player capture resources and try to destroy the other teams stuff. Super fun.

    and Savage XL (Savage is free on Desura)
     
  23. ostrich160

    ostrich160

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Posts:
    679
    Spore did it right though.
    And then they decided to scrap that prototype, and do it wrong

    4 years I waited for that game, I'll never forgive EA