BF2S Forums Pitch your ultimate game idea!

Adams_BJ wrote:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=133374

Adams_BJ wrote:

everyone has a dream game, what is yours?

My dream game would have to be an MMOFPS, ranking system like BF2, with a sovereignty system, one huge server and real time skill training like in EVE, game play semi sim/semi arcade, and the large scale areas of ARMA.

Two factions. Coalition and Commies maybe. 3 countries either side. 1 country with a bonus to military, industry or politics, etc. for each faction. And each country has an Army, Navy and Airforce branch. Each branch will have roles (MOSs even)

Army will have say, infantry, air(helicopters) and engineering bonuses to skills time to learn.

Navy would have marines, air(jets and helicopters(not us much bonus as army has to helicopters, or airforce has for fixed wing, say only half as much.) and seamanship bonuses to skills time to learn.

Airforce would have air(fixed wing), transport and reconnaissance bonuses to skills time to learn.
The branches will also get bonuses to their main roles.

Back story would be on a fictional continent, in the Indian ocean maybe from the equator to further south, near the Antarctic so it can cover all ranges of tropics desert and snow. After years and years of civil war, the UN has announced it a cluster fuck as all government has been lost and warlords are taking over, and has made it a free for all for countries to lay claim to the areas in it. The coalition has taken its part, the commies have taken there's and there is still a whole lot more to be taken.

Play would be completely sandbox so you can train for whatever you want, with your bonuses affecting how much time it takes to train them. You can speed it up by doing America's Army like classes while playing, or go to sleep. Who cares. you would be a subcontracter in a security force(like blackwater), so you aren't actually employed of your faction and can go freely between the two.

You can join other players to make your own companies, doing missions for your faction or taking your own areas of a continent and making money from them. Starting small by occupying a village or something, whether peacefully or forcefully. From there you can upgrade the infrastructure, increasing your profit and maybe even making it a city eventually. Other companies come attack your spots, occupying for themselves or just wiping it and its infrastructure out with bombing and artillery. How you attack also effects how much infrastructure kept from occupying it.

Players would need to patrol for enemies in their provinces, make convoys for supplies, and large companies will eventually have large scale operations, where the one large server is key to the population of the operations.

DUnlimited wrote:

Miggle wrote:

that game sounds awful spearhead

especially the "frostbite" -part.

Miggle wrote:

DUnlimited wrote:

Miggle wrote:

that game sounds awful spearhead

especially the "frostbite" -part.

third person game on the worst engine ever made with one of the cheesiest stories ever thought up

Miggle wrote:

DUnlimited wrote:

Miggle wrote:

that game sounds awful spearhead

especially the "frostbite" -part.

third person game on the worst engine ever made with one of the cheesiest stories ever thought up

Spearhead wrote:

Miggle wrote:

DUnlimited wrote:

especially the "frostbite" -part.

third person game on the worst engine ever made with one of the cheesiest stories ever thought up

Trolling?  If so, disregard the following..

"Mass Effect minus the cheesiness", hence that specific comment in my OP.  You really think the cheese factor completely cancels out the innovation, originality, and value of the Mass Effect games?  Talk about nitpicking.

As for Frostbite being the "worst engine ever"...huh, a first person shooter, using soccer game animations, and was used to make a Need for Speed game... also happens to be gorgeous, photo-realistic, and has the best audio design in any game ever.  But nooooooope, BF3 was a disappointment, so the engine must be the "worst ever".  derp.

The idea in my OP was to not only say what you think would make a great game, but also through INFORMED CRITIQUE, how pros/cons of already existing games could be used to articulate/quantify that game.  You know, for people who lack reading comprehension, creativity, and the capacity to imagine anything other than through their pre-existing, limited psychological schemas. 

But +1 anyway for contributing nothing, saying my idea is bad, and providing no explanation whatsoever for your opinion.

Spearhead wrote:

(you still have not said anything about Mass Effect, other than that you don't like it )