would you try to be original and come up with something new (Do explain) or would you just go with the military/space marine vibe? How would you make those cliche'd styles seem new story wise? Gimme awesome twists!
If you had to make a shooter game, what would its story be?
- Thread starter Evaheist666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A World War 2 game where you play as the perspective of a Heer Stormtrooper retreating across the eastern front as the Soviets close in on Berlin.
During gameplay you'd see the attitudes of your squad change towards the war, and even the reich, you see people die and get replaced, and it all gets constantly more desperate until you're all massacred by the red army in the end.
If I were to compare it to a movie, it would be the FPS equivalent of Downfall.
Also entirely in German/Russian.
During gameplay you'd see the attitudes of your squad change towards the war, and even the reich, you see people die and get replaced, and it all gets constantly more desperate until you're all massacred by the red army in the end.
If I were to compare it to a movie, it would be the FPS equivalent of Downfall.
Also entirely in German/Russian.
Really if you have to make a shooter game you have to stick to certain principles. People typically don't run around with guns shooting things, there are few reasonable sets of circumstances that involve guns in the first place. Even if you plan on going for an unreasonable situation then there is really only some guy shooting people a la Postal or that moronic troll-tasm that was the school shooter mod.
Another integral problem is an FPS can't really do story outside blocked moments since you are listening for gunfire, so you have to have only cut scenes or someone shouting into your ear with a radio distracting you from what you are supposed to be doing. Taking control away from the player is already a bad idea since it can just rip you straight out of the game like a bungee cord.
The consumer is another issue since I don't think most FPS players want anything other than your COD's and Tom Clancy style games. SWAT and its sequels back in the day (Must be about 1996-99) was an amazing tactical game but I don't think it actually sold. There was very little in the way of real story just continuing situational complexity (as opposed to complication) that really made it just awesome.
I might add some more if I think of anything.
Another integral problem is an FPS can't really do story outside blocked moments since you are listening for gunfire, so you have to have only cut scenes or someone shouting into your ear with a radio distracting you from what you are supposed to be doing. Taking control away from the player is already a bad idea since it can just rip you straight out of the game like a bungee cord.
The consumer is another issue since I don't think most FPS players want anything other than your COD's and Tom Clancy style games. SWAT and its sequels back in the day (Must be about 1996-99) was an amazing tactical game but I don't think it actually sold. There was very little in the way of real story just continuing situational complexity (as opposed to complication) that really made it just awesome.
I might add some more if I think of anything.
America goes crazy with power and launches a full scale invasion of the entire world.
Australian soldiers would join Europe, Asia and the rest of the surviving world (Including Russia), and create an alliance to push American forces back and defeat them.
Game would centre around guerilla tactics. (Proper guerilla tactics)
See war from a non American point of view for a change...
[sub]This is just my opinion on what would make an interesting game.
I highly doubt it would sell very well though.[/sub]
Australian soldiers would join Europe, Asia and the rest of the surviving world (Including Russia), and create an alliance to push American forces back and defeat them.
Game would centre around guerilla tactics. (Proper guerilla tactics)
See war from a non American point of view for a change...
[sub]This is just my opinion on what would make an interesting game.
I highly doubt it would sell very well though.[/sub]
It'd be based on a near-future guerrilla war.
You play one of the guerrillas. The enemy have air support, powered armour and tanks. You have AKs and improvised explosives. Enemy soldiers would be ridiculously hard to kill. The focus would be on achieving objectives while avoiding open combat as much as possible.
Also, America would not be involved in any way. Y'know, just for a change.
Oh, and the game ends with you and any companions being executed by firing squad.
It would be awesome and nobody would ever buy it. I would probably end up getting sued by my publisher or something.
You play one of the guerrillas. The enemy have air support, powered armour and tanks. You have AKs and improvised explosives. Enemy soldiers would be ridiculously hard to kill. The focus would be on achieving objectives while avoiding open combat as much as possible.
Also, America would not be involved in any way. Y'know, just for a change.
Oh, and the game ends with you and any companions being executed by firing squad.
It would be awesome and nobody would ever buy it. I would probably end up getting sued by my publisher or something.
You're an archer in a medieval army, try to add a bit of personality to the arrow shower, bonus points for successfully running away from a cavalry charge or looting corpses on the battlefield, penalties for catching pneumonia and dying in the mud.
Australia goes crazy with power and launches a full scale invasion of the entire world.
American soldiers would join Europe, Asia and the rest of the surviving world (Including Russia), and create an alliance to push Australian forces back and defeat them.
Game would center around open field tactics. (Proper combat tactics)
See war from a non Australian point of view for a change...
[sub]This is just my opinion on what would make an interesting game.
I highly doubt it would sell very well though.[/sub]
I can make a game sound completely lopsided too.
OT: ...... I take it back, war with Australia would be pretty awesome. Maybe the Falklands War, that could be pretty interesting.
American soldiers would join Europe, Asia and the rest of the surviving world (Including Russia), and create an alliance to push Australian forces back and defeat them.
Game would center around open field tactics. (Proper combat tactics)
See war from a non Australian point of view for a change...
[sub]This is just my opinion on what would make an interesting game.
I highly doubt it would sell very well though.[/sub]
I can make a game sound completely lopsided too.
OT: ...... I take it back, war with Australia would be pretty awesome. Maybe the Falklands War, that could be pretty interesting.
In the 11th century and asteroid has fallen near the village where the protagonist resides, inside it there is an alien spore (somewhat similar to the RE4 thingy) that controls people's minds, and guess what? you must fight it with bow and arrow.
If I was going to design and FPS I'd make it a defensive game that stresses setting up ambushes, tactical retreats, and driving enemies off. It would need some ability to create barricades - something I have a lot of fun with when a game allows it.
For a setting I'd go with futuristic, but I'd avoid power armor and gatling lasers and what not. It would involve a colony on one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons and start with someone's attempt to infiltrate the colony so they can kill everyone off and claim it as their own. After your thwart this they send in a military/mercenary force to secure the colony.
The colony should be large enough for the bulk of the game to be set there. Eventually I could see you traveling to the enemy's ship and this would need to maintain the gameplay somehow - you can't spend 90% of the game fighting defensively and then go all space marine on their ship. Perhaps you travel there with a squad of soldiers and need to progressively take and hold areas of the ship - and when you have claimed enough critical systems you're able to commandeer the ship.
For a setting I'd go with futuristic, but I'd avoid power armor and gatling lasers and what not. It would involve a colony on one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons and start with someone's attempt to infiltrate the colony so they can kill everyone off and claim it as their own. After your thwart this they send in a military/mercenary force to secure the colony.
The colony should be large enough for the bulk of the game to be set there. Eventually I could see you traveling to the enemy's ship and this would need to maintain the gameplay somehow - you can't spend 90% of the game fighting defensively and then go all space marine on their ship. Perhaps you travel there with a squad of soldiers and need to progressively take and hold areas of the ship - and when you have claimed enough critical systems you're able to commandeer the ship.
You, sir, have my vote for the next Game Developer Overseer elections.AmrasCalmacil said:
As for myself - I'd probably take an urban setting. The time period is insignificant. And I'd allow the player to have access to a wide arsenal of tools, weapons and whatnot. The tasks set beofre them would depend on the time period, but all of them things that can be resolved peacefully, as long as the player shows enough skill and consideration. Essentially, what I'm aming for is a game that gives you the potential to be a mass murderer, but doesn't demand it and most definitely doesn't reward it. In fact, the game world should react with increased wariness and suspicion.
One possible realisation of this is a cold war era spy game, where you're a foreign agent stationed in a relatively small town with a nearby missile base. You get missions from newspaper adverts, telling you to investigate police routes, deliveries to the base, places the military personel go on their free days. Scratch that - have a single mission to steal and transmit launch codes without being caught and then get hints as to what you could do to achieve that. Have the town have a limited number of people, and, if the player turns out to be a very effective killer, the town becomes empty.
how bout animal wars...in the future...so you can be any number of animals packed with weapons...kind of like a mech warrior thing but, ya know, animals instead of robots.
Basically, Ender's Game. But without the toddlers. If you think Mirror's Edge invoked motion sickness...
I'm kinda old school about my shooters.
don't need anything more fancy than:
"there are bad guys here,here and here.they said nasty things about your mother/country/religion.you'd best be filling the air with little tiny pieces of them,because you know they'd do the same to you if they had the chance,so you'd better not give them an opportunity.what?you want rewards for killing them?fine.we'll give you a sticker to put on your lunchbox for every 100 you kill.and you get to not die."
that's all I needed back in the day(Doom 1 era).
actually,that's a little more than I needed.added the stickers for funsies.we could just as easily make them cheevies or perks/powerups.
don't need anything more fancy than:
"there are bad guys here,here and here.they said nasty things about your mother/country/religion.you'd best be filling the air with little tiny pieces of them,because you know they'd do the same to you if they had the chance,so you'd better not give them an opportunity.what?you want rewards for killing them?fine.we'll give you a sticker to put on your lunchbox for every 100 you kill.and you get to not die."
that's all I needed back in the day(Doom 1 era).
actually,that's a little more than I needed.added the stickers for funsies.we could just as easily make them cheevies or perks/powerups.
A game where the act of pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger has a real emotional gravity behind it. I've yet to play an FPS or any type of shooting game where I've given more than a cursory thought as to what I'm actually doing, or what the virtual act of shooting someone represents.
As to how such a feeling may actually be elicited in the player, I'm not sure. Perhaps a well written story and deep characterisation could be used, and perhaps exceedingly realistic and stark animation in showing the effects of shooting someone. A military shooter would probably be ill-suited to capturing this, as de-sensitization forms an important part of military combat effectivness, something that I'd argue is defintely encapsulated in a lot of shooters today. A character-driven adventure game played from the first person with freedom to use guns but with all the associated consequences might be better.
I think it'd be very interesting to present shooting in a game in a stark, bold and frank way. However, it would require a far more talented and imaginative person than myself to develop a game that manages this.
As to how such a feeling may actually be elicited in the player, I'm not sure. Perhaps a well written story and deep characterisation could be used, and perhaps exceedingly realistic and stark animation in showing the effects of shooting someone. A military shooter would probably be ill-suited to capturing this, as de-sensitization forms an important part of military combat effectivness, something that I'd argue is defintely encapsulated in a lot of shooters today. A character-driven adventure game played from the first person with freedom to use guns but with all the associated consequences might be better.
I think it'd be very interesting to present shooting in a game in a stark, bold and frank way. However, it would require a far more talented and imaginative person than myself to develop a game that manages this.
I would go with...
You play a leader of a Resistance (bear with me here) who is lauded as a hero and worshipped by all. As the game progresses it becomes clear that something is a little off and when you're kidnapped by the big bad (the government) they reveal the truth. Showing that the Resistance is evil, using your charisma and charm (despite terrible leadership and combat ability) to lead the masses while behind the screens they experimented on their soldiers. So you spend the rest of the game killing your former comrades. yay for plot twists.
Bioshock esque abilities from the experiments coupled with varying weaponry. I just like the idea of a veneer of lies falling away, coupled with the reversal of the joining the freedom fighters thing. Since when were freedom fighters always on the right side?
You play a leader of a Resistance (bear with me here) who is lauded as a hero and worshipped by all. As the game progresses it becomes clear that something is a little off and when you're kidnapped by the big bad (the government) they reveal the truth. Showing that the Resistance is evil, using your charisma and charm (despite terrible leadership and combat ability) to lead the masses while behind the screens they experimented on their soldiers. So you spend the rest of the game killing your former comrades. yay for plot twists.
Bioshock esque abilities from the experiments coupled with varying weaponry. I just like the idea of a veneer of lies falling away, coupled with the reversal of the joining the freedom fighters thing. Since when were freedom fighters always on the right side?
Partisans.
You play as a Partisan in WW2 and you must, together with your comrades, harass enemy supply lines and do covert operations, while oppressing the local population with demands of food.
You can make a twist of a management simulator if you're a Jew Partisan and you need to protect the general populace while keeping them fed.
Or something along these lines.
You play as a Partisan in WW2 and you must, together with your comrades, harass enemy supply lines and do covert operations, while oppressing the local population with demands of food.
You can make a twist of a management simulator if you're a Jew Partisan and you need to protect the general populace while keeping them fed.
Or something along these lines.