[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
When you play the game, it goes onto the internet and, using your zip code, it checks the time of day and the weather…
[/QUOTE]
You’d have to have the option of disabling this of course. Can you imagine your friends coming around to play Call of Duty 5 and you’re all standing around outside waiting for the weather to clear? “We’re not gonna be able to play tonight guys, the weather’s crap!”
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
I’d like to see a driving game with maps of real places. Maybe a computer-based one that you could download specific cities or states – or maybe the computer downloads maps from a central server based on which direction you’re traveling in the game, sort of like Google Earth. You could perform a real cross-country drive, planning a real route using real highways or surface streets, without spending a fortune on gas.
But seriously – real maps. I want to drive through my town or county, or through Chicago or St. Louis or New York. Landmarks would be required, town-specific cool places/architecture/geography would be a humongous plus.
I’m looking for realism here though. I don’t want to race, I don’t want checkpoints, I don’t want cash to upgrade my car, I don’t want police chases, I don’t want to butcher cows (I guess those could all be options, but…), I just want to drive – on real maps.
[/QUOTE]
Try Gran Tourismo (4 I think) for the PS2. Lots of real courses, some of which are city courses. Look at their website, they have in game/real life photos to compare and they are freakishly close. They spent a lot of time on this. Also, they go crazy for reality in the car’s abilities. The only drawbacks are that they don’t have some of the best real life cars (because they have exclusive licenses with other games) and no crash damage (but that doesn’t sound like what you are after).
I had an idea for a game a couple of years ago. This comes from my notebook in which I write things down:
This game would be somewhere in between Hearts of Iron and Axis and Allies- the recent game Making History: The Calm and the Storm is a good idea of what the interface might be like (turn-based, not too complicated), but it would have options such as HOI does. The “semi-comical” comes from the fact that the game would be humorous in tone, with comedic animations in the decision boxes.
[QUOTE=Autolycus]
I would love to see a RPG storyline that rivals a classical work of fiction. I mean.. I love me my RPGs, but nothing comes close to the plotline, emotional invection, or plain old DRAMA that a great book does.
Of course, I probably just need to play more RPGs 
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard that Parasite Eve was based on a book. I’d really like to read that.
I am really hoping that the new physics cards on the PC side, and hopefully the PS3 on the console side, will have the power to program sports games using real time physics on the players bodies…no more tackling animations, no more passing and receiving animations…every limb of every player is given a weight value, and by calculating the speed and direction of movement, when players collide, the engine can generate the results
I’ve had an idea for a video game, what’ca think?
Footboall game, doesn’t matter too much which one. Pick the most popular. Now put one unit in a sports bar in Dallas and another in a sports bar in Washington. Which bar always gets which team is a given. You could even set up a video link between the two bars to include the game players and the spectators.
Think it would make money?
[QUOTE=mobo85]
This game would be somewhere in between Hearts of Iron and Axis and Allies- the recent game Making History: The Calm and the Storm is a good idea of what the interface might be like (turn-based, not too complicated), but it would have options such as HOI does. The “semi-comical” comes from the fact that the game would be humorous in tone, with comedic animations in the decision boxes.
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of which…a good alternate history WWII game (even a shooter) would be fun. Operation Sealion, maybe, or a spinoff of My Tank is Fight!. Something like that.
Could be even wilder if you play on the Axis side.
[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
I want a Lawnmower Simulator. Not to chop up zombies with, just to mow lawns. Preferably a FPM. I could start off with a push mower, then gradually upgrade to a ride-on. With weather effects, timed runs, real time grass-growing, tricycles to avoid, the works.
[/QUOTE]
Mowin’ Maniac? Not really even close to as advanced as you’re talking about, but…
A quality RPG (Oblivion-like) based upon Pratchett’s Discworld, with dialogue and storylines written by Pterry himself.
Wow, some of these games sound very boring.
[QUOTE=Derleth]
I want a campaign-based wargame that puts you in the position of more or less a real theater-level general with all of the political fighting that entails. In order to win, you have to survive the war in your current position or higher. Challenges include changing political climates, military contractors that are only as honest as they absolutely have to be (which means your equipment is not perfect or even mostly perfect), variable media coverage, hospitals, and those ever-pesky “other countries” with their politics and media and things that gravely offend them (like, in some cases, your continued existence).
[/quote]
I’ve always wanted to see a Civil War game based on managing the Eastern Theater of the war where it was just as important to manage the politics of the situation as it was to defeat the enemy in battle.
Check out Sid Meier’s Covert Action. Most of the game is following leads, tapping phones, and decoding messages. You break into buildings to plant wiretaps and photograph evidence, but getting into actual shooting matches tends to be counter-productive. Eventually you have to raid safe houses to grab ring leaders, but if you haven’t put together an evidence base against them, it won’t be worth it.
Of course, it’s circa 1992, so the graphics and sound completely suck compared to modern games. VGA-tastic!
An online RPG where you can “steal” skills from other players. Beyond that, however, you can train your character to the point where they can switch bodies with other players, against their will. It would take a long time to charge that power, so people couldn’t just be switching places all the time. Even if the skill went with the body, the other player would be stuck for a long time. I imagine making a disgusting fat hairy male character who only possesses the body-swap skill, and goes and steals the body of a powerful, attractive female character with an abundance of skills. “Ha-ha, now you’re an ugly dude with no abilities!”
An online role-playing game that doesn’t have any fantasy elements. Basically, something that takes place in the modern world, but has all of the RPG elements. Kind of like Grand Theft Auto, but a MMORPG.
[QUOTE=Charger]
An online role-playing game that doesn’t have any fantasy elements. Basically, something that takes place in the modern world, but has all of the RPG elements. Kind of like Grand Theft Auto, but a MMORPG.
[/QUOTE]
Have you tried City of Heroes? It’s set in the modern-day. Of course, if you have no interest in comic-book style superheroes, then you probably wouldn’t be interested.
How about things I’ve seen in video games? I don’t play them. But me exSO showed me one where you could piss on your victim. :eek: Made a nice overlap from his internet game addiction and my porn addiction.
[QUOTE=Charger]
An online RPG where you can “steal” skills from other players. Beyond that, however, you can train your character to the point where they can switch bodies with other players, against their will. [snip]
[/QUOTE]
In theory, this was the theme of the non-online RPG Omikron: The Nomad Soul. Getting into a police station was a lot easier in the body of a police officer than in the body of a burglar, for example… The switches just weren’t that well implemented.
I would love a sports simulation where off-the-field matters were handled with something resembling real-world logic. I like to see different players valued differently by different teams, for example, and not the simple Player X is rated a 92 and Player Y is rated an 89 and therefore X > Y in any trade situation. I’d actually like to see the ratings invisible to the user, requiring the player to evaluate talent in ways other than simply looking at a rating. It’d be fun to see teams dump veterans for prospects when their seasons go wrong. It’d be great to see a football simulation in which the AI doesn’t sign Tom Brady to a 3-year contract when they already have Peyton Manning under contract. More elaborate contracts in general, to add to the complexity of free agency. The ability to follow college players all year long, so that the names are familiar to you by the time the draft rolls around and the draft becomes less of a crapshoot.
Gameplay keeps evolving in sports games, but the team management stuff seems to be at about the same level as it was five years ago. I wonder why.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
I would love a sports simulation where off-the-field matters were handled with something resembling real-world logic. I like to see different players valued differently by different teams, for example, and not the simple Player X is rated a 92 and Player Y is rated an 89 and therefore X > Y in any trade situation. I’d actually like to see the ratings invisible to the user, requiring the player to evaluate talent in ways other than simply looking at a rating. It’d be fun to see teams dump veterans for prospects when their seasons go wrong. It’d be great to see a football simulation in which the AI doesn’t sign Tom Brady to a 3-year contract when they already have Peyton Manning under contract. More elaborate contracts in general, to add to the complexity of free agency. The ability to follow college players all year long, so that the names are familiar to you by the time the draft rolls around and the draft becomes less of a crapshoot.
Gameplay keeps evolving in sports games, but the team management stuff seems to be at about the same level as it was five years ago. I wonder why.
[/QUOTE]
If you enjoy baseball, I suggest checking out the Out of the Park Baseball series. 2007 was just released, and I haven’t played it, everyone agreed that 2006 was a big stinkbomb, and I haven’t played it. But a few other guys around here and I are in a league using 6.5, and it’s pretty awesome. Version 5 is free, if you want to check it out, but I don’t know how it compares to 6.5.
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”]
I want to see a game that blends turn based strategy, real time tactics, flight simulator, and first person shooter. In the turn based mode you’d act as the general in command of the units in your theatre of war. You have as much time as you like to think out your attack and defense plans. Your lower ranking officers carry out your orders as AI or you can choose a mission to control directly as an RTS.
You may also choose missions to be involved with personally. Got a particularly important bridge that needs to be taken out? You take the place of one of the pilots on the attack mission. Need to sneak into a camp and free an important prisoner? You take the roll of one of the soldiers in an FPS style mission. Basically it’d have pretty much every war genre available for you to play. If you only want to play it as an FPS then the AI can take care of the strategy. Or you can treat it completely as a strategy game and let the game take care of the details.
Similar in a way to Medieval Total War but taking the next step to give you more freedom in how you play it.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think turn-based would be viable in anything that has real-time components, but I want to see a really well-managed version of the current mega-online battles, where you have a general who issues checkpoints and strategy, to a lieutenant who issues checkpoints to his subordinates, etc. The ones I heard about were too hard to play and the strategic objectives didn’t seem to make sense.
Certain players would be able to play as infantry, or tankers, or commanders, or pilots, depending on their skills and assignments.
Two things, though, that I don’t think the current games offer, besides touchy-feely complaints about strategy and tactics:
– Setting. I want a global battle to take place in the MechWarrior universe, where the space cruisers battle it out with the winning nuking you from orbit, with the mechs battling it out for control of the landscape, with the winning mechs being able to go into the cities to take over the strategic objectives, only to be sniped at by the remaining infantry… :::drool::::
– Limited resources. If you’re only dedicated a certain number of soldiers/tanks/planes per side, and they all die, too bad, no one else can play, wait for the next instance or until they become available!
[QUOTE=John Corrado]
I’ve always wanted to see a Civil War game based on managing the Eastern Theater of the war where it was just as important to manage the politics of the situation as it was to defeat the enemy in battle.
[/QUOTE]
There was an old Civil War strategy game called “No Greater Glory” that tried to do that. Each state and map region had various loyalty levels that could change over the course of the game based on your actions, and when you were putting together your cabinet or making cabinet changes, you had to take into account not just the cabinet members’ skills, but also their regional and factional characteristics. You’d lose radical support if you had too many moderates on the cabinet, for instance, and lose support from New England or the Deep South if they weren’t represented.
When picking generals, not only did you have to worry about regional considerations, but also prestige…if you gave a general a command, you’d lose public support if you didn’t also give the more famous generals command, as well, and the top 5 USA/3 CSA generals had to have the largest commands. This was fine at the beginning of the game if you were the Confederacy, becaue Lee was at number 1, but if you were the Union, in order to get either Grant (ranked 10th in prestige) or Sherman (ranked 9th) in commands where their skills could matter, a lot of more famous but less skilled commanders had to lose big battles first, just as happened historically.
[QUOTE=betenoir]
How about things I’ve seen in video games? I don’t play them. But me exSO showed me one where you could piss on your victim. :eek: Made a nice overlap from his internet game addiction and my porn addiction.
[/QUOTE]
Postal 2 ?
Great game. Walk into some random person’s house. Stun gun them till they fall on the floor and piss themselves, poor petrol on them and toss in a match.
Or stand in the street and piss on a random person till it makes them puke.
"Thank you for your unclean money. Now get out