There is no connection to any humans that aren't near you right now. The only communications infrastructure remaining is Skynet. If someone else has a major victory, you will never know unless you believe meta-discussions you read on the real world Internets.
Ah...that's kinda explicitly ruled out by the terminator universe. The resistance - the vast majority of surviving humans- can and do communicate, over great distances. Everything is rarified, but it does exist, and it is used - the resistance have nuclear submarines, for fuck's sake. And you're not going to get all those people working together without the notice of the resistance.
See, the thing is that half your idea is fantastic, half your idea is bad/doesn't fit the universe(you're changing the rules, therefore it's not the same game)/is practically unworkable for real-world reasons.
So yeah, come up with all the game ideas you want. Just don't conflate them with my original idea if it doesn't conform to this vision.
Then take your ball and go home.
Nobody here is claiming anything other than your own idea is your own idea - literally the first two sentences in the thread are "Here's scrym's pitch. And I have some ideas of my own to add."
And I know for a goddamn fact that you know you can't stop anyone from taking your idea and running with it in whatever direction they like. I bloody well hope you know that just because it's your idea doesn't make it sacrosanct, any more than anyone else's. And I'm pretty fuckin' sure that if anyone else was behaving like you are about this, you'd laugh them out of the metaphorical room and tell them they're acting stupidly.
Instead why don't we just start a cam site where we all masturbate together until our genitals are raw and bloody? Sounds similar.
Thats nearly as good as paying for something where I get no enjoymentI In fact the express intent seems to be to not have any source of pleasure! Oh wait.
Yes, I know it doesn't exactly mirror the Terminator universe. That's just the closest well known fictional universe, so it's an easy shortcut to use when describing the idea. The goal has never been to exactly mirror that universe.
Even though the game is a game of suffering, it's not without any pleasure. It is an extreme instance of delayed gratification. Work hard and suffer for years and years, pumping in quarters, fighting robots, getting slaughtered. Maybe one day humanity will finally overcome the robot overlord. It will be an event of such great celebration and joy, it will feel as if the real world was saved.
That is dumb and you know it, no one would play that game. Would you play that game Scott, honestly. would spend a good part of your day pumping quarters for this crap, and do pull the duh thats old arcades argument because we all know what happened to them.
That is dumb and you know it, no one would play that game. Would you play that game Scott, honestly. would spend a good part of your day pumping quarters for this crap, and do pull the duh thats old arcades argument because we all know what happened to them.
I didn't say anyone would play. I just said that's what the idea is.
Its pretty much just the same idea behind Molyneux's curiosity cube, tho obviously thats more about testing large group curiosity motivation than overcoming a big challenge. But its the same sort of purposely un-fun game that requires massive collaboration to "beat"
Its pretty much just the same idea behind Molyneux's curiosity cube, tho obviously thats more about testing large group curiosity motivation than overcoming a big challenge. But its the same sort of purposely un-fun game that requires massive collaboration to "beat"
Well, there is a large group curiosity motivation inherent in the design, even though that is not the goal. Where is the skynet central control? What is it like? There's basically some big ending level that nobody has ever seen. It brings back that mystique of the old NES days when the endings of video games was but mere rumors. If someone manages to even see the central core from far away, the screenshot will be a big fucking deal.
The only annoyance is that it requires secrecy of the developers, which I don't like that much.
The bullshit answer: Yes, because the huge payoff at the end would be SO worth it.
Realistic answer: No, if it wasn't his idea, he wouldn't, he'd call it stupid and the people paying the money stupid, point out that while you'd feel awesome after the big win, that feeling would quickly go away when A)the next game started and B)when you realized how much money you'd spent over that time.
And then he'd say something like "Oh Mans, can you imagine if you had to pay a quarter every time you died in counterstrike? I'd have to have paid like a million quarters!" He'd jump the pitch and volume of his voice up a few notches on the second half, with a sudden pitchdown on "Ters" in quarters, before laughing.
I'm wagering that either Scott hasn't thought terribly critically about this idea yet, or that he's not communicating the entirety of it effectively and wondering why we're not getting exactly what he's thinking.
(Edit- Judges, may I have a score for that guess?)
Not specifically related, but if you get time to check out the Sword Art Online anime it has a single-life persistent online imagined world thing going on.
I was thinking the other day how its really cool how the ending of a bunch of old super hard arcade games was literally just the machine fucking up and crashing. Seems like a good allegory for life..................................... damn
I think you are getting it now, you are just having trouble letting go of some base assumptions. You ask who would play this game? You are assuming that one of the goals of the idea is getting lots of people to play, as that is a goal of almost every game. You say it's not fun. You are assuming that one of the goals is to make a fun game, as being fun is a goal of almost every other game.
The whole point of the idea is that it is a game which challenges almost all the assumptions people make about games. There are so many things people just take for granted when making a game, many can't even comprehend a game that would not follow those assumptions.
That's why it was used as an example in our Money Making Game panel. What if someone used this business model that has never been used before with a game that doesn't align itself neatly into any existing genre?
That is dumb and you know it, no one would play that game. Would you play that game Scott, honestly. would spend a good part of your day pumping quarters for this crap, and do pull the duh thats old arcades argument because we all know what happened to them.
I didn't say anyone would play. I just said that's what the idea is.
Then it is a silly idea. Edit; ninja'd but still there might be a reason why people take these things for granted.
What if someone used this business model that has never been used before with a game that doesn't align itself neatly into any existing genre?
Well, this particular model of game you've proposed, they'd lose their collective metaphorical shirt, because the amount of money they'd bring in wouldn't likely outweigh the cost of the hardware they'd have to buy just to start it, let alone keep it going over time.
If nobody would play it, then it's just a thought experiment, not a game.
I'm pretty sure we all know a game even remotely like this will never exist in our lifetimes. That being said, it is a game. Since a game is just a set of rules. In that sense, an idea for a game is the game itself. It's just unplayable without a physical manifestation. Then again, if it's a video game, you can say that the code is the rules, so no video game can exist that is not yet coded and running, and every patch to a game actually makes it a new game.
The bullshit answer: Yes, because the huge payoff at the end would be SO worth it.
Realistic answer: No, if it wasn't his idea, he wouldn't, he'd call it stupid and the people paying the money stupid, point out that while you'd feel awesome after the big win, that feeling would quickly go away when A)the next game started and B)when you realized how much money you'd spent over that time.
And then he'd say something like "Oh Mans, can you imagine if you had to pay a quarter every time you died in counterstrike? I'd have to have paid like a million quarters!" He'd jump the pitch and volume of his voice up a few notches on the second half, with a sudden pitchdown on "Ters" in quarters, before laughing.
I'm wagering that either Scott hasn't thought terribly critically about this idea yet, or that he's not communicating the entirety of it effectively and wondering why we're not getting exactly what he's thinking.
(Edit- Judges, may I have a score for that guess?)
9.12
Scott has taken some cool, interesting ideas and added enough bullshit that it wouldn't work in any realistic mean.
Oh wait, there is one way it could work. The whole playerbase is kidnapped and forced to play the game on some warehouse or whatever until they win, after which they are let free. Then there would be players who won't stop playing the game because of the frustration.
Oh wait, there is one way it could work. The whole playerbase is kidnapped and forced to play the game on some warehouse or whatever until they win, after which they are let free. Then there would be players who won't stop playing the game because of the frustration.
Oh wait, there is one way it could work. The whole playerbase is kidnapped and forced to play the game on some warehouse or whatever until they win, after which they are let free. Then there would be players who won't stop playing the game because of the frustration.
To be fair, violating human rights would indeed be a unique way to acquire and maintain a player base.
Oh wait, there is one way it could work. The whole playerbase is kidnapped and forced to play the game on some warehouse or whatever until they win, after which they are let free. Then there would be players who won't stop playing the game because of the frustration.
To be fair, violating human rights would indeed be a unique way to acquire and maintain a player base.
Let me respond now that this has exploded overnight.
Claiming that I didn't understand your pitch was wrong. I was expanding on the ideas.
Super difficulty: Yes, it is still hard. You will still die all the time and have to work in large groups to try and get the code fragments. I thought I made this clear in my post, but I'll reiterate it here anyways.
Cooperation: No one person will ever get all of the codes themselves, build it, and then deactivate Skynet. People will share codes, which they only do by interacting with each other in person, and so you have a desire to work with as many people as possible to ensure all the code's you all find remain in the world. It would hopefully take player's months to get through the balls-ass difficulty parts of exploring the world where you instantly die to find all 100 keys, and then the Terminator's go into overdrive, FORCING the player's to try and win. The Terminator's would actively hunt down anyone with a completed code, and there would be no more safe-zones. Every player with the completed code has to try and win the game and shut down Skynet.
Quarters: This was straight up here. A quarter for a new life. I kept that part. I just added incentive to beat the server because everyone gets a free life.
I understand why you don't want multiple servers, but I have a fact for you: No one gives a fuck about PvE combat in online games anymore. Give them a game where everyone has to work together in order to beat Skynet? There is 0 incentive to play such a game.
What you gave in your panel was a new monetization scheme for a game. You then gave a gameplay style that fit that theme. However, your game lacked a drive to have player's play it. The core was missing.
So I added in something. Competition. Rewards. Possibility for victory, however fleeting. This would bring people into the game.
I didn't change the monetization scheme, nor did I change the core gameplay mechanics. I added in new ones, because I felt like having a non-violent solution for how you defeat Skynet was a more logical way for a game like this. It's more than just "Team up and get as many rocket launchers as we can and get 500,000 people to rocket launch into Skynet," it's "Cooperative teamwork to try and gather all these things together and work with as many people as possible so hopefully ONE of us has a chance to get in there and shut down Skynet."
I like your original idea, without my additions. I really do. But you're missing several aspects of the game design. The part where you add fun to an experience.
You say you want it to be not fun.
Fuck you, don't become a Game Designer. This is why I'm in school to make games. Games should provide a positive experience. If a game only exists to frustrate you, I don't agree with that. Mechanics in a game should be enjoyable. Difficulty may frustrate you, and I've kept that here, but I want the actual mechanics and rules of the game to be fun. Playing the game, exploring this world, having to learn how to not instantly die, that is fun. But it's not fun if you don't have an active goal to work towards. Player's need a goal and motivation to reach it. That's what I was trying to provide.
No one gives a fuck about PvE combat in online games anymore. Give them a game where everyone has to work together in order to beat Skynet? There is 0 incentive to play such a game.
Maybe in the US/Europe/Brazil. PvE is still the main focus in a lot of Korean, Japanese, and Chinese MMOs.
A game doesn't need to be fun. But that is why people play games. A challenge can be fun, yes. Impossible challenge that is just the biggest fucking pain in the ass? Not very fun, and no one will participate in that.
If you like your original pitch and dislike mine because "I add too much fun and normalcy," cool. Then you can go tell everyone on the internet how I ruined your idea. Meanwhile, I'm gonna discuss something that is an idea with some potential that I ACTUALLY think would make a solid new experience for players.
high skill based difficulty, persistent, non-instanced, scarcity, causal actions, permadeath (for lack of a more specific term), coin operated, massively multiplayer
Until you realize your goal as a player is not only vague, but completely undefined. What are you working towards? Fighting your way through likely 1000's of impossible to defeat robots for the chance to shoot at a computer hopefully making it blow up?
That is such a goal that I don't even want to work towards.
I've kept every mechanic originally introduced by the game, and just added in a scant few new ones. I hardly think I've ruined the spirit of the original.
Until you realize your goal as a player is not only vague, but completely undefined. What are you working towards? Fighting your way through likely 1000's of impossible to defeat robots for the chance to shoot at a computer hopefully making it blow up?
You don't want to do that? Well that's you. Not me. :P
Until you realize your goal as a player is not only vague, but completely undefined. What are you working towards? Fighting your way through likely 1000's of impossible to defeat robots for the chance to shoot at a computer hopefully making it blow up?
You don't want to do that? Well that's you. Not me. :P
Really? You'll pay a quarter every time you die. And there's no reward. And in Scryms original pitch, as they said almost verbatim, "Then the game ends. Maybe we restart it. MAYBE."
Comments
See, the thing is that half your idea is fantastic, half your idea is bad/doesn't fit the universe(you're changing the rules, therefore it's not the same game)/is practically unworkable for real-world reasons. Then take your ball and go home.
Nobody here is claiming anything other than your own idea is your own idea - literally the first two sentences in the thread are "Here's scrym's pitch. And I have some ideas of my own to add."
And I know for a goddamn fact that you know you can't stop anyone from taking your idea and running with it in whatever direction they like. I bloody well hope you know that just because it's your idea doesn't make it sacrosanct, any more than anyone else's. And I'm pretty fuckin' sure that if anyone else was behaving like you are about this, you'd laugh them out of the metaphorical room and tell them they're acting stupidly.
Even though the game is a game of suffering, it's not without any pleasure. It is an extreme instance of delayed gratification. Work hard and suffer for years and years, pumping in quarters, fighting robots, getting slaughtered. Maybe one day humanity will finally overcome the robot overlord. It will be an event of such great celebration and joy, it will feel as if the real world was saved.
The only annoyance is that it requires secrecy of the developers, which I don't like that much.
Realistic answer: No, if it wasn't his idea, he wouldn't, he'd call it stupid and the people paying the money stupid, point out that while you'd feel awesome after the big win, that feeling would quickly go away when A)the next game started and B)when you realized how much money you'd spent over that time.
And then he'd say something like "Oh Mans, can you imagine if you had to pay a quarter every time you died in counterstrike? I'd have to have paid like a million quarters!" He'd jump the pitch and volume of his voice up a few notches on the second half, with a sudden pitchdown on "Ters" in quarters, before laughing.
I'm wagering that either Scott hasn't thought terribly critically about this idea yet, or that he's not communicating the entirety of it effectively and wondering why we're not getting exactly what he's thinking.
(Edit- Judges, may I have a score for that guess?)
The whole point of the idea is that it is a game which challenges almost all the assumptions people make about games. There are so many things people just take for granted when making a game, many can't even comprehend a game that would not follow those assumptions.
That's why it was used as an example in our Money Making Game panel. What if someone used this business model that has never been used before with a game that doesn't align itself neatly into any existing genre?
Edit; ninja'd but still there might be a reason why people take these things for granted.
Scott has taken some cool, interesting ideas and added enough bullshit that it wouldn't work in any realistic mean.
Oh wait, there is one way it could work. The whole playerbase is kidnapped and forced to play the game on some warehouse or whatever until they win, after which they are let free. Then there would be players who won't stop playing the game because of the frustration.
Claiming that I didn't understand your pitch was wrong. I was expanding on the ideas.
Super difficulty: Yes, it is still hard. You will still die all the time and have to work in large groups to try and get the code fragments. I thought I made this clear in my post, but I'll reiterate it here anyways.
Cooperation: No one person will ever get all of the codes themselves, build it, and then deactivate Skynet. People will share codes, which they only do by interacting with each other in person, and so you have a desire to work with as many people as possible to ensure all the code's you all find remain in the world. It would hopefully take player's months to get through the balls-ass difficulty parts of exploring the world where you instantly die to find all 100 keys, and then the Terminator's go into overdrive, FORCING the player's to try and win. The Terminator's would actively hunt down anyone with a completed code, and there would be no more safe-zones. Every player with the completed code has to try and win the game and shut down Skynet.
Quarters: This was straight up here. A quarter for a new life. I kept that part. I just added incentive to beat the server because everyone gets a free life.
I understand why you don't want multiple servers, but I have a fact for you:
No one gives a fuck about PvE combat in online games anymore.
Give them a game where everyone has to work together in order to beat Skynet?
There is 0 incentive to play such a game.
What you gave in your panel was a new monetization scheme for a game. You then gave a gameplay style that fit that theme. However, your game lacked a drive to have player's play it. The core was missing.
So I added in something. Competition. Rewards. Possibility for victory, however fleeting. This would bring people into the game.
I didn't change the monetization scheme, nor did I change the core gameplay mechanics. I added in new ones, because I felt like having a non-violent solution for how you defeat Skynet was a more logical way for a game like this. It's more than just "Team up and get as many rocket launchers as we can and get 500,000 people to rocket launch into Skynet," it's "Cooperative teamwork to try and gather all these things together and work with as many people as possible so hopefully ONE of us has a chance to get in there and shut down Skynet."
I like your original idea, without my additions. I really do. But you're missing several aspects of the game design. The part where you add fun to an experience.
You say you want it to be not fun.
Fuck you, don't become a Game Designer. This is why I'm in school to make games. Games should provide a positive experience. If a game only exists to frustrate you, I don't agree with that. Mechanics in a game should be enjoyable. Difficulty may frustrate you, and I've kept that here, but I want the actual mechanics and rules of the game to be fun. Playing the game, exploring this world, having to learn how to not instantly die, that is fun. But it's not fun if you don't have an active goal to work towards. Player's need a goal and motivation to reach it. That's what I was trying to provide.
If you like your original pitch and dislike mine because "I add too much fun and normalcy," cool. Then you can go tell everyone on the internet how I ruined your idea. Meanwhile, I'm gonna discuss something that is an idea with some potential that I ACTUALLY think would make a solid new experience for players.
persistent,
non-instanced,
scarcity,
causal actions,
permadeath (for lack of a more specific term),
coin operated,
massively multiplayer
It still sounds fun to me.
Until you realize your goal as a player is not only vague, but completely undefined. What are you working towards? Fighting your way through likely 1000's of impossible to defeat robots for the chance to shoot at a computer hopefully making it blow up?
That is such a goal that I don't even want to work towards.
I've kept every mechanic originally introduced by the game, and just added in a scant few new ones. I hardly think I've ruined the spirit of the original.
And in Scryms original pitch, as they said almost verbatim,
"Then the game ends. Maybe we restart it. MAYBE."