Video Games You Wish Existed

[Graknorke]

It's an MMO where most gameplay is PvE, and the PvP is taken as either straight-up dueling, or there's FLARPing going on. With the whole GM and player rounds interchanging, and the one who got most as player gets to claim the victory prize (Think about bowling and batting in cricket. Each team takes a turn bowling and each takes a turn batting, and the ones who got most batting win). That way, you could have teamwork plays too.
Maybe server-wide events that happen every so often. Like a big fucking spider lusus in some area.

[Thedude3445]

uhhh I didn't mean to start a conversation on an Alternian MMO it was a joke lol

[Graknorke]

uhhh I didn't mean to start a conversation on an Alternian MMO it was a joke lol

It cannot be stopped.
A Rolling Stone gathers many royalties.

Or something like that.

[Thedude3445]

so I should get paid for each post about this conversation? :P

[Ouroboros]

No, you should be made royalty for every post about this conversation. You are currently the Prince of Atlantis, the King of Pop, and the Duke of Earl.

On a more on topic note, I'd like to see a good game, that is not a puzzle game or a sim, and that does not center around combat. I literally can not think of one off the top of my head, or at least not one that could be considered a "full length" game.

[Karhs12]

He's also the Earl of Duke, hilariously enough.
Also, a non-sim game that isn't a puzzle and has no combat would be a simple platformer where the entirety of the challenge is in successfully jumping from one thing to the next. I mean, I suppose it depends on how far you stretch "sim," but since you obviously aren't including racing games you must be defining it as pretty broad.

[Ouroboros]

Well, I was mainly thinking that a majority of games on the market right now have combat in them, but I really don't see why that's necessary. I mean, combat and puzzles aren't the only possible challenges out there. Honestly though, I guess "sim" is kind of vague. By sim, I meant stuff like farmville or the sims. Basically, games with no real over-arching goal. For some reason, games like that tend to be less combat focused, but the lack of a goal makes them more like complicated toys than games. I guess the main reason why I want to see a game like that out there is that, even if the game turns out to be crap, it at least means that somebody out there is actually trying to be innovative instead of following the same patterns as everyone else. Like, why not a game about gene-splicing? You've got a planet with randomly generated conditions, and you want to create a species that can survive there by altering its various traits. It's not a puzzle, since there's no single set solution, or even a specific set of solutions, but it's not focused around combat either. I guess there might be a little combat, what with hunting and whatnot, but the combat wouldn't be anywhere near the game's focus.

[Graknorke]

Flower?
It's really more of an exercise in controller tilting.

Beyond that, the gene splicing thing could very well count as a puzzle. You have to do X, and figure out HOW to get there (in this case, a species that can survive).
Pretty much every game falls into either twitch-responses or puzzle. Or a mix.

[Graknorke]

Flower?
It's really more of an exercise in controller tilting.

Beyond that, the gene splicing thing could very well count as a puzzle. You have to do X, and figure out HOW to get there (in this case, a species that can survive).
Pretty much every game falls into either twitch-responses or puzzle. Or a mix.

[Navaha]

I really want to see a first-person zombie survival game set in a procedurally-generated city. You and a group of survivors are holed up in a secure location, and you have to go out and find supplies to help your group survive until you can find a way out of the city. You would be able to use any object in the environment as a weapon, as well as move things around to make barricades (or even get a hammer, nails, and some wood to board doors and windows shut). Each individual limb takes damage (meaning limbs can be broken or chopped off), but the only way to kill a zombie is to decapitate it or destroy its brain. Likewise, you can take damage to each limb, and can get an arm or leg broken if you're not careful. In addition to the undead, you also have to worry about looters and the military. Everything in the game can be broken (including the walls themselves), so hiding in a locked room might not save you.

Not particularly original, I know, but yeah.

[Frost]

Well, I was mainly thinking that a majority of games on the market right now have combat in them, but I really don't see why that's necessary. I mean, combat and puzzles aren't the only possible challenges out there.

Games are only fun when they're challenging; games are made challenging by giving the player an (implicit or explicit) goal, and having there be an obstacle in the way of achieving that goal; and the most obvious obstacle is something "intelligent" in direct conflict with the player (eg, the opposing team in a football simulator, or the monsters in a roguelike).

Having the obstacle be non-intelligent and passive (eg, the environment, or the inherent difficulty in "working out" a complex problem) places a game into the "puzzle" genre, by definition. Lots of people find these games dull, though, since passive obstacles are generally beaten through logic rather than twitch reflexes, and since our brains are set up to find conflict exhilarating.

[dialecticBlight]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean that roguelikes aren't accessible. They're largely quite simple, numpad movements, simple letter bindings for menus.
The only reason people don't is because they don't want to, having largely conformed to the mass media's "good" (Looks pretty, kills time, isn't particularly difficult, everything is brown and grey). And social standards are a tricky thing because they tend to reinforce themselves. Anyone who deviates from it and doesn't hide their secret love of nethack or whatever gets hounded for it by aforementioned consumers of sparkly firing-range simulators. Then they end up begrudgingly accepting the same things through pressure, and will then not stop them doing it to others.
There ends up with little public interest or something like it, and an aversion to trying something that isn't "normal" (Looks pretty, kills time, isn't particularly difficult, everything is brown and grey) for fear of being unusual. They'll usually cite something like "The graphics are ugly eww" though, saying that something without 3d rendering and what-have-ye isn't a "proper game".
Basically, people don't play them because not enough people don't play them.
And all of this is from personal experience trying to get people to play DF/Cataclysm/MUDs.

Yes I'm coming across as elitist, but it would be kind of difficult not to. Also because I'm probably a closet elitist or something.

EDIT: How could you have a roguelike without permadeath and punishing gameplay?
That's what Rogue is all about yo. You can't have something without one of the core gameplay features and say it's like Rogue. Well, you COULD, but you'd be lying.

Sorry for the delayed reply, but...
0_o This backlash is somewhat ridiculous.

I only meant "accessible" in that I didn't want permadeath. As an avid Dwarf Fortress fan I'm no stranger to ASCII-based graphics, and in fact I was trying to refer to a game with ASCII graphics here. I in fact don't like many mainstream games, but I want to become somewhat attached to my actual character because I'm a sentimentalist like that, and don't like the idea of having to continually recreate him/her, which for me just ruins the entire personal aspect of the game.

I in fact heavily prefer freeware roguelikes that weren't published by major companies, because they tend to not be heavily watered down (I played Pokemon Mystery Dungeon and generally disliked it), but I do absoutely hate the elitist attitude that's sprung up that "you can't have a roguelike without permadeath," because half of the main features of roguelikes - grueling difficulty included - can still be maintained even without it. It's the main thing that's prevented me from playing them, and is in my opinion mostly unnecessary and only serves to frustrate half of the playerbase who would otherwise be interested.

[Graknorke]

I find it kind of interesting what I've been posting recently actually, because I've been on stronger hayfever tablets, so my general judgement is diminished, and I'm pretty easy to work up because of it as well. It also means that I haven't been checking or doubting what I'm posting.
Anyway, I think past me had a valid point though. According to RogueBasin permadeath is a major feature of roguelikes. In fact, a lot of things that you consider to be obtuse and undesirable are listed on there as being core features of roguelikes. In fact, at the 2008 roguelike development conference, they came up with an officialish definition of a roguelike, and that too had permadeath and other complications as part of what makes a roguelike a roguelike.

[chimericWilder]

Doesnt mean that a roguelike without permadeath isnt something that cant exist, though! It would just need to be defined differently.

[Graknorke]

So you're saying that the definition of a roguelike should be changed, or that it wouldn't be a roguelike? As in, it'd be a new genre that was basically a roguelike-but-not-entirely-a-roguelike?

[Softspoken]

What I'd say about the situation is that if you require a game to have a list of specific features to belong to a certain genre, the longer said list is the less you're allowing experimentation with the formula, and the more you're requiring every game to feel the same.

That being said, horrible interfaces do deter me from games, as does an implied "you should be reading a wiki before you do anything".

[Graknorke]

The list there isn't so long. It's pretty much; Randomness, turn-based and gridded, permadeath, item interactions, kill things,complex (multiple solutions to problems), and a focus on exploring.
That isn't TOO restrictive. The second and third are almost guaranteed, if not just because of engine limitations and necessity on the part of the player to have thinking time on what action to take next.

I don't think I've ever played a game where I had to check a wiki to play.
Maybe with the exception of SS13 (because of the huge amount of job-specific stuff and the fact that failure experimenting could wreck the fun of others), but other than that a game should be intuitive enough that you can learn from experimentation. In my experience, every other game is intuitive enough to learn by trial and error.

[Thedude3445]

I really want to see a first-person zombie survival game set in a procedurally-generated city. You and a group of survivors are holed up in a secure location, and you have to go out and find supplies to help your group survive until you can find a way out of the city. You would be able to use any object in the environment as a weapon, as well as move things around to make barricades (or even get a hammer, nails, and some wood to board doors and windows shut). Each individual limb takes damage (meaning limbs can be broken or chopped off), but the only way to kill a zombie is to decapitate it or destroy its brain. Likewise, you can take damage to each limb, and can get an arm or leg broken if you're not careful. In addition to the undead, you also have to worry about looters and the military. Everything in the game can be broken (including the walls themselves), so hiding in a locked room might not save you.

Not particularly original, I know, but yeah.

Zombie games are getting so old it's not funny, but I like this idea. It's like Fallout plus Frosbite 2 plus Zombies.

[MobileMammal]

I really want to see a first-person zombie survival game set in a procedurally-generated city. You and a group of survivors are holed up in a secure location, and you have to go out and find supplies to help your group survive until you can find a way out of the city. You would be able to use any object in the environment as a weapon, as well as move things around to make barricades (or even get a hammer, nails, and some wood to board doors and windows shut). Each individual limb takes damage (meaning limbs can be broken or chopped off), but the only way to kill a zombie is to decapitate it or destroy its brain. Likewise, you can take damage to each limb, and can get an arm or leg broken if you're not careful. In addition to the undead, you also have to worry about looters and the military. Everything in the game can be broken (including the walls themselves), so hiding in a locked room might not save you.

Not particularly original, I know, but yeah.

Zombies are a little 2007, according to the Cookie Monster.

Change it to ferrets and you're golden.

[MustLoveCats]

Homestuck the game.

[bladeVantas]

Homestuck the game.

Awesome idea but, how many times has this been brought up?

[Karhs12]

Honestly though, I guess "sim" is kind of vague. By sim, I meant stuff like farmville or the sims. Basically, games with no real over-arching goal.

With that particular definition of sim, then a solid chunk of racing games would fall under "No puzzles, no combat, non-sim."

[BRPXQZME]

Change it to ferrets and you're golden.

Probably the first game I wanted to make in a serious way (which I conceived while I was still in high school but never really fleshed out) involved ferrets and all-around hyperactivity. A sort of competitive action-puzzle game with shinies and candy and ferrets on rockets flying around everywhere.

Other than what inspired it and my mental image of how it looks, though, the above two sentences contain just about everything about said game that exists.

[Varkarrus]

My opinion on this Alternian MMORPG
All blood castes have a limited amount of players that can be connected to them at any time. Like, you can only have 1,000 rustbloods or 1,000 purplebloods and stuff. They'd all be very high and very rarely reached, except for Tyrianblood, which is 1.
Permadeath is on. If your character dies, s/he is deleted from the server. This will also happen if you don't play your character for a long time.
There is a high mortality rate. Your character is likely to die anywhere from 5 minutes in to a few days.
You get very little benefits each level up, and leveling is slow, but there is literally no limit to your level. (A level 3 and a level 1 will be mostly evenly matched. A level 10 will likely beat a level 1 every time, though, though will lose about half his/her health.
During character creation, you get to assign stats and other quirks, and negative quirks, that all cost points. For example, psychic powers might cost 10, tyrianblood (and all associated advantages) 50, and you get 200 points total to spend. There are no classes.
You can spawn pretty much anywhere in the entire game world.

[lostWanderer]

Also, a non-sim game that isn't a puzzle and has no combat would be a simple platformer where the entirety of the challenge is in successfully jumping from one thing to the next.

You know what recently-released, popular game fits this description? Super Meat Boy. Pretty sure its "full game length", too.