Which idea do you like best?

[Emerald]

Well, I've always found conceiving of games/novels/what-have-you to be the best and most exciting part of the entire process. Unfortunately, it's the first step in the process, so once I come up with a good idea, I usually don't make it any further...

Anyway, I was just wondering, out of the following list of ideas, which would you most like to play? (And which would you rather gouge out your eyes than play?)
Keep in mind, this is about the basic concept - the plot, characters, setting, etc can come later


1. A game based around three people (a genius girl who suffers from OCD and mild autism, a silver-tongued guy who's good with people but tends to panic, and a tormented soldier-of-fortune who's lost his will to live) get thrust together for some reason. Possibly involving a paranormal plot - the important part is the interplay between the characters, and the way you can switch between them to take advantage of each of their strengths (problem-solving, people-handling, danger-coping)

2. An assassin game, where you must explore the area and devise ingenious ways of taking out your target and making it look like an accident (somewhat like the Hitman series, only without the option of shooting up the place). It's like a standard adventure game, where you talk to NPCs and solve a series of puzzles in order to progress, except instead of your ultimate goal being to escape an island, or find a girl, you're trying to kill some crimelord. After several missions, you're eventually caught up in some sort of conspiracy, etc.

3. A virtual reality game, in the vein of 'The Game', or 'Total Recall', where you can never really tell what's real, and what isn't. You use all five senses to solve puzzles, with your ultimate goal being to find out what's happening (are you going insane, are you still in the game, or is it all real?)

4. A game based off Columbine, which centers around a mature, highly emotional storyline (rather than that shitty RPG) where you have to escape a high-school shooting, saving as many people as you can. The primary focus would be on trying to instill the horror and evil of the whole thing, giving the player a sense of helplessness and frustration (like a real survivor would feel) as he/she watches it unfold.

5. A game about the IRB, and the early years of Irish Independence (in the vein of 'Michael Collins' or 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley') and the Civil War. You play both a Fenian, and a British Constable trying to hunt them down. Solve puzzles ranging from outsmarting the Black & Tans to saving a farm from being burned down.

6. A game about an agency known as the 'Time Keepers', who ever since the invention of the 'time machine', has been tracking offenses and enforcing the 'Interdimensional Temporal Constitution', with their ultimate goal being the assassination of the man who invents the time machine, and the destruction of any information relating to its construction, prior to it being constructed, in hopes that time will 're-lineate' itself.

7. A game about an underground world of vampires, and one man's struggle to keep hold of his humanity.

8. A game based on 'Pulp Fiction', about drugs, sex, violence, and Royales with Cheese. Puzzles would range from 'breaking and entering', to 'pumping adrenaline into the heart of your boss's girlfriend as she OD's on the kitchen floor of your drug-dealer's house because if you took her to the hospital said boss would find out and blow off your kneecaps'.

9. A game in the same vein as 'Heroes', where every character is a normal person who discovers they have special powers. Telekinesis, telepathy, time-controlling, etc. could make for some innovative puzzles.

10. A game based on the 'film noir' or 'hard-boiled' style - much like Grim Fandango, only less comical, and more gritty and dark, with a down-trodden, pessimistic main character traipsing through the seedy underbelly of society.



Also, would you prefer:
a) a longer game with less choices/variations (and thusly less replay value)
or
b) a shorter game with more choices/variations (and thusly more replay value)

[Ghost]

1, 10, and 7, in that order. I'd value a good one-time experience above replay value.

With concept 1 I see a lot of possibilities that players will come back to the game anyway since there are several characters (I used to spent a lot of time backtracking my DOTT savegames just to get each characters comments on all the inventory...) offerering their (unique) views on events.

Also, despite the very short outline of concept, 1 somehow hints at "Cube"... and that's meant as a compliment.

[tube]

2 and 1 seem the most interesting, and definitely a) to the second question.

4 I'd probably not play at all.

[Snake]

6, 2, 9 & 3 seem to be outstanding ideas. I'd love to play those - doesn't matter what order, but definately "Time Keepers" I'd love to see first.

I'd like to play a long game with high replay value.

The rest really don't apeal to me at all.


--Snake

[Babar]

None of those idea seem particularly original, but I guess that is not what you were asking.
It seems you have thought up the background, or the 'structure', without paying mind to the actual story. I believe if you plan both at the same time (molding the backstory and situation to the actual story and game as well as the other way around), you can get a better fitted together game. Also, try staying grounded. Any 'artistic' or 'mature' meaning or substance to your game will be generated while creating it, rather that by just assuming and planning out: "Okay, I want my game to be mature, so I'll add this, and I'll add this, but I won't show this of this".


Why not try combining some of your ideas for something more innovative and original out of a mess of old ideas:
Like a 'film noir' game involving a Time Keeper Agency (that investigates Time-travelling related crimes) that came into existence some time in the future, where mutations due to UV rays from the sun have created a new generation of human children who have weird unique powers. Three of these agents are assigned to a case where somewhere in 15th Century Transylvania, there have been a rash of strange murders. This case leads them into a deep conspiracy involving two gangs of these new age children- a certain "Dhakir-ullah"( with the powers of regeneration through consumption of another's blood); and the reborn IRB. The game would involve 3 stages: Researching and solving the murders in 15th Century Transylvania, Finding something to connect it to the gang wars in the contemporary time, and preventing (or joining up with one side) at the gang's face-off to complete the story.

PS: The above suggestion is not entirely serious.

[GarageGothic]

I think a lot of the ideas are good (albeit not original in other media, they would be new to adventure games). I think the film noir idea is overused these days, especially by people who don't know too much about the genre - if you could avoid the hardboiled detective stereotype and actually instill some of the feeling of fatalism and moral decay instead of just making a game in black and white, it could be interesting.

My favourite is probably 2. Since I'm a huge fan of the Hitman series, I think it would be great to see an assassin game where every hit doesn't turn into a bloodbath due to overly paranoid AI. I must emphasize the need for multiple and not too contrived solutions though, not something like 6 Day Assassin. You could have more focus on deception through dialog and other character interaction instead of sneaking and hiding in the shadows. If you haven't already, try playing DreamWeb for a good example of exciting and unique assassinations in an adventure game context. One thing though, the plots in the Hitman games are mostly there to string together the missions and always seems strangely random and quite contrived. Try to come up with a solid conspiracy plot first, then let that inspire the missions rather than the other way around.

[Emerald]

Nice responses so far. It's funny to see the differences of people's tastes around here...

None of those idea seem particularly original, but I guess that is not what you were asking.

You're absolutely right - that wasn't what I was asking

The idea here isn't to show off my amazing originality and creativity. I'm trying to get a feel for people's tastes. Like I said at the top - each 'idea' is a very basic concept, mostly stripped of characters, plot, setting.
This is because I only want opinions on the concepts. It's a given that people like well-written, involving plots with deep, developed characters and an original storyline.

Besides, complicating a plot just for the sake of originality isn't exactly going to make the story great. There's nothing more annoying than when two plot elements don't mesh properly and it just ends up looking like a frankenstein plot... (e.g. in the XDAS series, the whole 'world of science/world of magic' thing seemed incredibly misplaced and random)


Edit:

I must emphasize the need for multiple and not too contrived solutions though, not something like 6 Day Assassin. You could have more focus on deception through dialog and other character interaction instead of sneaking and hiding in the shadows

That was the main idea. I loved the way the Hitman series allowed you to dress up as a bodyguard, or a waiter and just wander around, giving you pretty much all the time you need to talk to people and figure out your best course of action, the escape routes, etc.
That, and the way you had an almost infinite number of possibilities, from sticking a bomb in a cake to pushing them off a ledge as they go out for a smoke break...
And since I always went for a 'silent assassin' rating, it always seemed more like an adventure/puzzle game than an action game (i.e. I'd try to figure out the perfect solution, using minimal violence, rather than just shoot my way through)

[Layabout]

Your aim when making a game should not be to please us. It should be the adventure game you have always wanted to play, or characters you have made up and like and want to write a story about them.

Commerciability should not really come into the equation.

I only like the time travel and the assasination idea. They are by far the most interesting. The rest I wouldnt bother playing.

[Emerald]

Your aim when making a game should not be to please us. It should be the adventure game you have always wanted to play

That's a fair point. But I really would be equally happy writing anything (within a certain degree). So, I might as well do something that other people are going to enjoy. Besides, the most likely thing to happen is that I'll get bored - but the more people who are enthusiastic about what I'm trying to do, the more I'll feel guilted into continuing

[nihilyst]

That's a fair point. But I really would be equally happy writing anything (within a certain degree). So, I might as well do something that other people are going to enjoy. Besides, the most likely thing to happen is that I'll get bored - but the more people who are enthusiastic about what I'm trying to do, the more I'll feel guilted into continuing

As long as you for yourself like the idea, do it. I couldn't imagine writing a story, that I personally dislike.

I prefer the "Time Keepers" idea. I'm fond of time travelling stories.

[Jack Sheehan]

Originality is hard. It's a simple fact that most things have been done before and better. A good way of doing things is to take a different perspective. For example, and please dont steal this idea, a game I am writing is set in a crumbling dictorship. Thats been done before, right? Well I'm setting things from the point of view of a weatherman in the propaganda broadcasting station. The rebels are never seen, nor are any government officials or soldiers.

Settings are always going to remind us of something else, the trick is putting your own spin on things.

[Nostradamus]

3 and 6 sounds the best to me, in that order. They are the most interesting, unique and exciting to me.
Also the concepts of most of the rest of them have already been done in games.

[Frodo]

Number 7 appeals to me most.  I love a good vampire story.   

1, 3, 9, & 10 (in no order) also sound good.
I definately wouldn't play 8 (Pulp Fiction) or 2 (assasin).   

For your second question - I would prefer a longer with less options.  If the story is good, then I would replay it again anyway.   

[space boy]

Also, would you prefer:
a) a longer game with less choices/variations (and thusly less replay value)
or
b) a shorter game with more choices/variations (and thusly more replay value)

I prefer
c) A longer game with more choices/variations.

[Stupot]

Number 3 tickles my fancy the most.

The whole 'what is real?' Matrix thing has been done almost to death, but the idea of using the 5 senses in the gameplay sounds very interesting.

(I thought I'd already said this but my post isn't there so either its been deleted or I neglected to press Post).

[Emerald]

Also, would you prefer:
a) a longer game with less choices/variations (and thusly less replay value)
or
b) a shorter game with more choices/variations (and thusly more replay value)

I prefer
c) A longer game with more choices/variations.

That completely defeats the purpose of the question

Maybe I should clarify this:

Say you have:
a) A game that takes 20 hours to complete, roughly, and has 200 plot/dialog choices, which could alter the course of the story
OR
b) A game that takes 40 hours to complete, roughly, and has 400 plot/dialog choices, which could alter the course of the story

Now, that's probably wishful thinking for any adventure game, but this is all hypothetical. The point is, they're both long adventure games, with a lot of choice, but one has more choice, and the other is longer.
Which would you prefer, A or B?

Personally, I always like a game with as much choice as possible. Games like 'Mass Effect' and 'Knights of the Old Republic' are the only ones I tend to replay, because it's like you've only seen a fraction of the story when you've completed it, as opposed to games like 'The Longest Journey', which I only really replay once I've forgotten the story...
(Plus, when you complete TLJ you get this feeling like "Well damn, it's over. Now what do I do?", whereas with ME it's like "Cool. Now I wonder what happens if you be a dick to everyone...")

[Snarky]

Personally, I like short games with few choices.

No joke.

I rarely have time or patience to finish a long game. (The only lengthy ones I've reached the end of in recent years are Psychonauts and Okami, and both of those are exceptional.)

And (especially wrt adventures) a compelling, consistent story is important to me, and I think different paths/choices/variation usually detract from having a strong vision of what the story is about. (One exception being Indy: Fate of Atlantis, which not only managed to make the different paths--for the most part--complementary and supporting each other, but also offered two variant endings where each was made more powerful by the other.)

[ThreeOhFour]

I agree entirely with Snarky.

If you've got 40 hours of gameplay, you'd better make sure it's the best damn gameplay there ever was, because who wants to sit through 40 hours of combining items? Seriously - I'd probably fall asleep.

I'm happy with a short game - actually, I love short games. Especially since we're talking amatuer adventure here - if a person has made a short game, it often means they've put more into each room of a short game. I personally dislike games with too many rooms to explore. I'd rather play a game that was the length of Reactor 09 - in fact, I'd say Reactor 09 as a fairly good example of what I feel an amateur person on his own should be aiming for length wise. Don't give me hundreds of ordinary puzzles - give me a few that are really good.

In saying this, I suck at designing puzzles. But I know the sort of game I like to play.

[space boy]

Now, that's probably wishful thinking for any adventure game, but this is all hypothetical. The point is, they're both long adventure games, with a lot of choice, but one has more choice, and the other is longer.
Which would you prefer, A or B?

C.

But seriously, I thought you meant one game with like 2 hours of gameplay but totally non-linear plot and total freedom and another one with 20 hours of gameplay but only
one way to play it through. It's easy to make a choice because the dimensions are well defined.

In your last post both games are damn long and offer a damn lot of choices, so which one do I pick? A long game with a lot of choices or a long game with a lot of choices? With numbers as large as in your last example the difference becomes kind of insignificant.

[Emerald]

In your last post both games are damn long and offer a damn lot of choices, so which one do I pick? A long game with a lot of choices or a long game with a lot of choices? With numbers as large as in your last example the difference becomes kind of insignificant.

It's an exaggerated example, but that's basically what I mean. I'm not saying '2 hour game' versus '20 hour game', I'm simply asking whether length is better than choice, or vice versa.  The specific length and degree of choice in any two hypothetical games presented aren't important - it's about which you would rather play, given no other information except one is longer than the other, but the other has more choice.
It could be 2 hours versus 20 hours, or 10 minutes versus 20 minutes. That part isn't important