Poll: I think the Hunger Games could make a pretty sweet game concept

[MammothBlade]

YES.

Health is rather realistic, but you should be able to heal various injuries with the right equipment.

You definitely don't want rushers who spawnkill really, so if you set it up like that ensure that everyone can get away from spawn. Prevent twitch gamers from getting any sort of upper hand too.

I think there ought to be a timer on standard games, maybe one or two hours before everyone's collar explodes.

I don't think people should be able to respawn. IT would kinda defeat the purpose of the match and take the challenge away. Once you are dead, you are dead. That way its really a question of skill.

Nowhere did I say people would be able to respawn. I just mean people who kill right at the start of the game. That would ruin it for many.

 

[krazykidd]

It would never work . That sounds like a long a boring online match/game . Plus even if they did manage to make the game , people would exploit the mehanics . And i don't know how much of the book you read , but there is more to it than just the hunger games .

So a big , NO , for me . That's a terrible idea . It might seem good in your head , but it's a terrible idea on paper .

 

[everythingbeeps]

It would probably take too long.

Then use battle royale's mechanisms to keep the game moving. Rotating kill zones where people will die if they don't escape. Put a time limit on the game, but allow people to play for marathon length if they like.

Then why not go all the way and make it a Battle Royale game instead? Wouldn't that be better anyway?

 

[Yopaz]

Wouldn't it kind of be like The Ship then, except with bigger environments?

...That sounds pretty awesome, actually.

This is my thought too. I like the concept, but I think the execution could be really hard. I also don't think it would be a major hit since it would take a long time to get through a match. However I would be really interested in something like this.

 

[saintdane05]

My idea

It should be a Downloadable title. Multiplayer only. YOu can customize your character. There are Different classes, which help determine what weapons you are proficient with (you can use any weapon. Proficiency increases damage when using those weapons.). Your District of Birth give stats boosts and unique abilities. Friends can go into non-ranked matches as "Sponsors" and drop power ups, however anyone can use them. Once you die, you can play as a Game-Maker, and unleash traps (again, only on non-ranked matches). The damage system has you healing only by applying the medical care, fused a Fallout 3 like limb damage thing. Infections and crippling from MGS3 included.

The game will have twelve different maps.

Generic Forrest

Generic Snow

Wasteland (Only area with modern weapons)

Super pretty zone (Where nearly everything kills you, see Catching Fire)

High Mountain (Lots of cliffs, rather dry, large wind effects.)

Large plains (Some mines stay on, doing a crap ton of damage.

The Clock Thing (from Catching Fire)

Flooded place (Lots of Water, but very little is actually drinkable)

The Underground (Dark very often. Torches can be found in hidden spots)

Scorched plains (Plains with a mixed layout, lots of fire)

The suburban area (A 50's suburban neighborhood)

Something else I have not thought of.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

It would definitely be fun and multiplayer pvp to the deaht games usually do well.

Parents will never allow it though

 

[shrekfan246]

I like the theory, but I'm usually one of the first people to die in a multi-player match, so I doubt I would actually participate. Give me a single-player mode against bots of various customizable difficulty, though...

Captcha: Practice makes perfect. Well played, Captcha.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

Well, at least you didn't pitch an adaptation of those trashy six-pence novels or the movie made on a 100 dollar budget with the actors being paid in beer.

But to be honest, I have seen The Hunger Games simulated on open world engines like Minecraft, and while cube structures don't exactly convey whatever feeling of terror one is intended to feel in the games, I got a basic understanding of how a mulitplayer game of this nature would proceed. So speaking from experience: no- just no.

 

[Vrex360]

I loved the books and the setting and the protagonist and I also quite liked the movie.

However I find myself thinking The Hunger Games sounds like Halo slayer with only melee weapons and that takes several months to complete per match.

 

[floppylobster]

You'd need Battle Royale style collars to force players into action and stop them just running away. Not everyone has an instinct to just go out killing. That's why Team Fortress 2 has multiple classes for those who just want to play support or defensive roles (Engineers, Medics).

 

[MammothBlade]

It would probably take too long.

Then use battle royale's mechanisms to keep the game moving. Rotating kill zones where people will die if they don't escape. Put a time limit on the game, but allow people to play for marathon length if they like.

Then why not go all the way and make it a Battle Royale game instead? Wouldn't that be better anyway?

That's what I meant from the start. It works better in several ways. Hunger Games takes the concept from BR after all.

 

[Bobic]

It would probably take too long.

Then use battle royale's mechanisms to keep the game moving. Rotating kill zones where people will die if they don't escape. Put a time limit on the game, but allow people to play for marathon length if they like.

I'm quoting this to first agree that Battle Royale's mechanics would work better for the game, but also, to say what I originally came here to say. It would be much better with Battle Royale's grit and gore. Now, before you complain, I'm not a guy who thinks everything should be a gory mess, but I think a concept as brutal as forcing kids to murder eachother should not be so clean and cheesy, you really need to accentuate the horror of such an event.

(coincidentally, this was one of my many complaints with the film as well).

 

[MammothBlade]

You'd need Battle Royale style collars to force players into action and stop them just running away. Not everyone has an instinct to just go out killing. That's why Team Fortress 2 has multiple classes for those who just want to play support or defensive roles (Engineers, Medics).

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. That and rotating kill zones - especially targeted against people who have been idling or hiding in buildings for too long. Maybe every 5 minutes, a random area becomes a killzone.

 

[Souleks]

While the concept of a survival/free-for-all works in Minecraft the only problem is well, Its fucking Minecraft meaning its big problem is it has Minecraft's terrible combat.
I always like the free-for-all game modes in pretty much anything I play I can tell you right now while it would be fun I don't know if I would be 100% behind something like that.

It would probably take too long.

Then use battle royale's mechanisms to keep the game moving. Rotating kill zones where people will die if they don't escape. Put a time limit on the game, but allow people to play for marathon length if they like.

Then why not go all the way and make it a Battle Royale game instead? Wouldn't that be better anyway?

Actually.. I could totally dig that..Someone go make a Battle Royale Arma 2 mod.

 

[Comocat]

I like the theory, but I'm usually one of the first people to die in a multi-player match, so I doubt I would actually participate. Give me a single-player mode against bots of various customizable difficulty, though...

Captcha: Practice makes perfect. Well played, Captcha.

Same here, but maybe dying is just a small part of the game. Perhaps once a player is eliminated the could become a gamekeepers who is in charge of the arena PvE elements. As a twist whoever dies first has the most power in controlling the map while the rest battle it out. So now there is a bit of strategy, do you rush the middle to get the best weapons, do you die in hopes of controlling the map, or do you hide and hope to outlast your opponents?

 

[shrekfan246]

I like the theory, but I'm usually one of the first people to die in a multi-player match, so I doubt I would actually participate. Give me a single-player mode against bots of various customizable difficulty, though...

Captcha: Practice makes perfect. Well played, Captcha.

Same here, but maybe dying is just a small part of the game. Perhaps once a player is eliminated the could become a gamekeepers who is in charge of the arena PvE elements. As a twist whoever dies first has the most power in controlling the map while the rest battle it out. So now there is a bit of strategy, do you rush the middle to get the best weapons, do you die in hopes of controlling the map, or do you hide and hope to outlast your opponents?

That could be an interesting turn on things. I'd like the ability to do more than just sit and spectate if I happened to be murdered in the first five minutes of a match, and it could be fun to be a cross between the Left 4 Dead AI Director and a glorified griefer. Of course, it would need a massive amount of balancing, and the gamekeepers would likely need to be deprived of the ability to flat-out kill any other players by methods such as spawning something right on top of somebody/right next to them.

 

[Jacco]

snip

I really like your thinking here. But with the twelve maps, there could be a randomization component to it where the computer can change specific elements of the maps so that they are always different.

(capcha: good job. hahahah)

 

[Biodeamon]

been there done that. just go look up mods or go on minecraft servers. you'll already find a fuck-ton of those

 

[Erttheking]

I dunno, it would either fail to maintain any atmosphere the book had, or very be long with minimal amounts of doing anything, mainly sneaking around and looking for other players like a hunter, which sounds kinda cool but many gamers lack that kind of patience