Post by Sweeney Terrier on May 27, 2015 8:48:09 GMT -5
Keep in mind these have to be LEGIT video game ideas, (just ideas you or one might make if they entered the VG entertainment field perhaps as more of a sincere, hard-working indie developer).
I decided to make this thread after moments ago coming up with a general idea for a video game.
While I am a story/character-based gamer, I have played at least Civilization Revolution, (the only console installment to Sid Meier's Civilization franchise which is a 4ex, {Explore the land, Expand your territory, Exploit resources and alliances, and Exterminate any foes}, strategy-based game in which you can choose 1 of several real-life cultures to play as, each with benefits, and maybe a downside. Imo, the most annoying to not play as is France perhaps. (Making alliances then shortly after dropping them, is what I've seen Napoleon do). But perhaps one of the best to play as is Romans…wonder why.
Anyway this idea sort of came to me when I was thinking of Civ Rev and also the latest Epic Rap Battle of History, (released on Memorial Day on YouTube), which is Lewis & Clark, (played by Rhett and Link), VS Bill & Ted, (played by Lloyd and Peter, the main ERB guys).
Anyway, the idea of this game in general is very much similar to Civilization or the Total War games, but given the details I have in mind, it would most likely take place in North America or, (if it were to follow Civilization), using North American cultures as of 1800 perhaps, (various Native American tribes, English, French, Spanish settlers or just the colonists). BUT, in regards to least the NA options, (Sioux, Iroquois, etc), unlike the traditional Civ game, you'd have an option to advance with America slowly, keeping to more traditional measures and perhaps at the most reaching an 'Amish'-like setup, (mostly traditional but perhaps slightly industrial but community-based), OR give in easily and just try to catch up with the rest of the nation, but either route may have a potential con to it. Like perhaps if you were to traditional, your culture would in turn be sturdy and strong and most likely your towns or villages wouldn't turn over to others unless they absolutely need to, {lack of food, production, etc},
Of course due to this variety of options there is a slight possibility, (so as to be fair), that the game wouldn't entirely follow the history of 19th century America, (you know, Trail of Tears, practically genocide, etc.), and if the map is set-up in a randomly-generated manner, you won't need to move your territory away from the Colonists/Americans if they get too near. However, certain tribes are more likely to keep a peace treaty for longer periods of time without drastic increases in the bargain, while of course others aren't. Certain natives will of course get along with the French settlers, I'll say that much.
What do you think overall? ^^; Also, the way I see it with this game, if you choose natives and traditional means, the goal is to survive the expansion of the colonists, (meaning manifest destiny may be goal of certain colonists). This is just a general idea though which is why it may seem contradictory to itself or confusing. I'm no designer though. And since I've only played Civ Rev, (none of the other Civilization games), and not a single Total War game, (I hope to play Empire: Total War when I get a laptop), I'm not entirely which style would fit better for perhaps a more fun or 'free' form of 4ex gaming.
P.S. Here's some examples from Civilization Revolution in terms of starting bonuses.
-Spaniards start with knowledge of navigation, (allowing for galleons and seafaring trips into deeper waters away from the coast).
-Russians start off with a larger awareness of the land, (therefore you don't have to travel as much in terms of the proximal region which would normally be covered in fog), but I like the mystery of finding out myself.
-French start off with a wonderful Cathedral to say the least.
-Romans start off with a Republic w/ a Code of Laws.
-Aztecs get a massive amount of money
-and Mongols can persuade barbarians to join their village rather than fight twice to maybe not get the village.
I decided to make this thread after moments ago coming up with a general idea for a video game.
While I am a story/character-based gamer, I have played at least Civilization Revolution, (the only console installment to Sid Meier's Civilization franchise which is a 4ex, {Explore the land, Expand your territory, Exploit resources and alliances, and Exterminate any foes}, strategy-based game in which you can choose 1 of several real-life cultures to play as, each with benefits, and maybe a downside. Imo, the most annoying to not play as is France perhaps. (Making alliances then shortly after dropping them, is what I've seen Napoleon do). But perhaps one of the best to play as is Romans…wonder why.
Anyway this idea sort of came to me when I was thinking of Civ Rev and also the latest Epic Rap Battle of History, (released on Memorial Day on YouTube), which is Lewis & Clark, (played by Rhett and Link), VS Bill & Ted, (played by Lloyd and Peter, the main ERB guys).
Anyway, the idea of this game in general is very much similar to Civilization or the Total War games, but given the details I have in mind, it would most likely take place in North America or, (if it were to follow Civilization), using North American cultures as of 1800 perhaps, (various Native American tribes, English, French, Spanish settlers or just the colonists). BUT, in regards to least the NA options, (Sioux, Iroquois, etc), unlike the traditional Civ game, you'd have an option to advance with America slowly, keeping to more traditional measures and perhaps at the most reaching an 'Amish'-like setup, (mostly traditional but perhaps slightly industrial but community-based), OR give in easily and just try to catch up with the rest of the nation, but either route may have a potential con to it. Like perhaps if you were to traditional, your culture would in turn be sturdy and strong and most likely your towns or villages wouldn't turn over to others unless they absolutely need to, {lack of food, production, etc},
Of course due to this variety of options there is a slight possibility, (so as to be fair), that the game wouldn't entirely follow the history of 19th century America, (you know, Trail of Tears, practically genocide, etc.), and if the map is set-up in a randomly-generated manner, you won't need to move your territory away from the Colonists/Americans if they get too near. However, certain tribes are more likely to keep a peace treaty for longer periods of time without drastic increases in the bargain, while of course others aren't. Certain natives will of course get along with the French settlers, I'll say that much.
What do you think overall? ^^; Also, the way I see it with this game, if you choose natives and traditional means, the goal is to survive the expansion of the colonists, (meaning manifest destiny may be goal of certain colonists). This is just a general idea though which is why it may seem contradictory to itself or confusing. I'm no designer though. And since I've only played Civ Rev, (none of the other Civilization games), and not a single Total War game, (I hope to play Empire: Total War when I get a laptop), I'm not entirely which style would fit better for perhaps a more fun or 'free' form of 4ex gaming.
P.S. Here's some examples from Civilization Revolution in terms of starting bonuses.
-Spaniards start with knowledge of navigation, (allowing for galleons and seafaring trips into deeper waters away from the coast).
-Russians start off with a larger awareness of the land, (therefore you don't have to travel as much in terms of the proximal region which would normally be covered in fog), but I like the mystery of finding out myself.
-French start off with a wonderful Cathedral to say the least.
-Romans start off with a Republic w/ a Code of Laws.
-Aztecs get a massive amount of money
-and Mongols can persuade barbarians to join their village rather than fight twice to maybe not get the village.