33 replies to this topic

[theepicgeno]

Origional Post (pointless to read, but whatever): Lets just say that we all worked together to create a multiplayer game like the movie Hunger Games. Would any of you actually be interested in making/playing this? Just a thought...

Edited, WAYY better post:

I have an idea... create a game like Hunger Games! I am not sure if it would be easy to create... I for sure wont be able to do it, ha. I have some ideas for it, but I need opinions, or ideas from you!

The type of game would either be 2.5d 3rd person (if you have ever played guerilla bob or something for the iPhone/iPod/iPad... you'll know what I'm talking about), or full first person 3d, like first person shooters.

Somethings you can do in the game would be:
- "sneak" to avoid being seen by other players.
- use items you find to find/kill other players.
- maybe even craft things... maybe.

Features of the game:
- maybe a time limit.
- maybe some creatures.
- hid items in random places.
- have small maps.

I need some more ideas on gameplay, what would happen in-game, and things inside the game. Thanks

Edited by theepicgeno, 23 April 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[lukew23]

Yeah, I thought about making a hunger games multiplayer game (before the movie came out), but I don't think it would work. You could do the hunger etc stuff easily ( i think theres a skyrim mod which would work the same way), but you couldn't get people to play for hours straight.

[Saijee]

like the movie Hunger Games

It wouldn't be to hard, just have the camera always way too close and make sure that it's always shaking irradically

But seriously, no I don't think that you'll be able to get GMC to work on this project together.

[Hookhandedman]

As I read the book I thought it might be interesting to make a game where you play as the Gamemakers (the guys who control the weather and stuff in the arena). Like you'd have to get a certain player to win. Or you get more points depending on how awesome of a show you put on (like by forcing the tributes to fight or making it easy for them to team up).

[Oelip]

Even if you'd manage to get a team to work on it, the game wouldn't be that interesting.

To keep it fair, you'd need to have all players connected at the same time for multiples hours straigh, without leaving.
And the world would have to be VERY open. More then Skyrim - that's alot (why do you think it took 5 years?)

I don't think you could adapt that movie.

[The Legend]

like the movie Hunger Games

It wouldn't be to hard, just have the camera always way too close and make sure that it's always shaking irradically

But seriously, no I don't think that you'll be able to get GMC to work on this project together.

Have you read the books?!?!? Of course he could! The only problem would be creating it a form that can easily utilize all 3 dimensions because unless GMCs best work on this, it'll have to be 2-D. Also, Multiplayer would need to be... limited. perhaps call multiplayer "Hunger Games simulation" Which goes on for a certain amount of time or until everyone gets slaughtered and make the main part of the game single player. AI would have to be pretty smart though. But despite these challenges if this game comes off right it'll be an internet hit.

[Saijee]

Have you read the books?!?!?

Nope, but that's irrelevant. Because he was asking about the movie, not the books.

Of course he could! The only problem would be creating it a form that can easily utilize all 3 dimensions because unless GMCs best work on this, it'll have to be 2-D

Of course he could what? The question he was asking is if he could get a bunch of GMCers to collab on a project, to which my answer is: Not Likely.

Also, a lot of people have this crazy idea that I'm an expert on using GM to make 3D games. Which, I don't really think is true. I'm just good at modeling and animating. But I know enough to say that GM is more than capable of delivering a full 3D experience with quality at least as good as the PS2 (But that depends on the skill of the artist).

Now I'm not trying to show off or anything (I didn't even do the graphics for this one) but here is a screen shot for a project that I've been programing for, just to show that Game Maker can have quality that is at least this good:

[lukew23]

The whole point of the original idea was a MULTIPLAYER game. This simply cannot work because you cannot make people play for extremely long periods of time, which would be necessary if you wanted to make an accurate multiplayer game.

The point about the GMC also stands. This kind of thing has been done before, it didn't work (apparently).

Also, The books are better than the movies. It wasn't another stormbreaker or eragon but it could have been better. Apart from Caesar, he was perfect. I don't think the movie really captured the essence of the books, so a game based on the books would be better.

[Saijee]

Luke, if you do not mind me asking. Where are you going with this?

[lukew23]

Ignore the tangent about the books etc. I am basically saying that making a multiplayer hunger games game wont work, and that even if it was possible to pull off well, I highly doubt you could organise and control many members of the GMC.

Edited by lukew23, 20 April 2012 - 04:09 AM.

[chance]

Lets just say that we all worked together to create a multiplayer game like the movie Hunger Games. Would any of you actually be interested in making/playing this? Just a thought...

The Hunger Games theme(s) could certainly be used in a game. Lots of games are set in the future after some apocalyptic event. Lots of games use battles between the player and another character. Lots of games use similar themes -- such as conflict, survival, moral dilemma, self-sacrifice, etc.

But I wouldn't recommend multiplayer. I'd stick with single player. Just write a short narrative story, and make a clear objective -- like survival.

NOTE:
You should change your post to discuss game design. Because right now it sounds like a "community game" idea. That doesn't belong here, and it'll just get your topic closed.

[theepicgeno]

NOTE:
You should change your post to discuss game design. Because right now it sounds like a "community game" idea. That doesn't belong here, and it'll just get your topic closed.

Then where does the topic go so the mods could move it?

[Jobo]

I would most certainly play a game like this.
But not in a low-quality Game Maker state.

As good an idea as this is (even though it would take a lot of planning to pull off properly, both for players and creators), it's too large and difficult for any indie team to pull off.

[Nocturne]

NOTE:
You should change your post to discuss game design. Because right now it sounds like a "community game" idea. That doesn't belong here, and it'll just get your topic closed.

Then where does the topic go so the mods could move it?

That depends... If you want to form a team, then this should be closed and you should post a team request in the (surprise!) Team Request Forum. If you want to discuss the IDEA of the game, then re-format your first post to outline the idea and the topic can stay here. If you want to discuss a community game then it would go in the Community Forum, but if that is the case then it will get closed as we do not permit GMC projects. The GMC is too big and has too great a user base to properly have a GMC game/project.

So, you decide...

[theepicgeno]

Ok, thanks for the info Nocturne! I am gonna post this in the team request forum... so I guess this topic could be closed, if you want it to be.

[Nocturne]

Actually, if you want to keep discussing the idea, you can... thinking about, I can't see any harm as long as you change the focus of the topic to being about the gameplay and how you would design it and not about the team that's going to make it.

[theepicgeno]

Alright, ill instead just edit the post and talk about the gameplay, and design ideas.

[Spyro Conspiracy Theorist]

I could actually see this working. I wouldn't worry too much about the length being too long, because it wouldn't have to go on for hours to give you that experience. There are other open-world games that do this very, very, well. Project Zomboid comes to mind, and if you haven't heard of it I suggest you look it up. It's a zombie survival game, and the rounds are short enough that there isn't even a save function (at least in the last update I played). It's a really compelling game where you spend the majority of the time a) not starving not getting seen c) exploring to make sure a & b are met for as long as possible. There are points in the game when you just have to lay low, in darkness, waiting for danger to pass. My average round in this last about... an hour and a half, maybe. But that experience could be refined to a much smaller timeframe, while still keeping the key elements that give it this feeling. So don't worry too much about people saying it's impossible to convey the experience of Hunger Games in a multiplayer round timeframe.

Of course there would still have to be parameters in place for when a player does log off unexpectedly... It shouldn't be too hard to blame that on the "gamemasters," by creating a little environmental hazard that "killed" the dropped player (it would have to be a small enough hazard to not allow for any trolling, though). As each player is killed or dropped, those that died can remain in a spectator mode (maybe they could even bet on the players), and the game could ramp up the frequency of natural hazards to make the difficulty actually increase.

One of the big problems I see off the bat, though, is that dying wouldn't be particularly consequential: quit out of spectator mode and find a new game. Thus, all the players will be a lot more reckless than they should be, which would make it basically impossible to convey the experience you'd want to. A possible way to fix this would be to make you lose all your stuff if you die right off the bat but get some benefit from being the last player standing. You'd probably have to give some more trivial reward to people who survive longer, too. It's not a perfect system, but it could probably be tweaked.

Just some ideas. I think you should definitely try to make it, I'm betting it's totally possible. It will be incredibly difficult to design and program, though. At least the story has a built in excuse for any deus ex machina you'd have to do to make the gameplay fit with the story (Gamemasters: game developers' dream story-element for making a game, it was awfully nice of Collins to put in a specific story element just to give an excuse for more random stuff to happen), which is a benefit most fangames don't get.

Edited by Spyro Conspiracy Theorist, 21 April 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[xhawkeyex]

The whole point of the original idea was a MULTIPLAYER game. This simply cannot work because you cannot make people play for extremely long periods of time, which would be necessary if you wanted to make an accurate multiplayer game.

In the game, we could all only allow certain areas in a map to accessible during a match. That way, the world is very limited and the players will not all be too far away from each other. If you don't understand what I mean, then take a look at grand theft auto. It is a huge area to run around in, but you are limited to where you can go because you are not allowed to leave the first Island. That is what I mean for this game.
It will make the matches much shorter and players can focus more on the main goal, "kill every other player."

As each player is killed or dropped, those that died can remain in a spectator mode (maybe they could even bet on the players), and the game could ramp up the frequency of natural hazards to make the difficulty actually increase.

In the book, they turned the deceased into vicious dogs. So maybe when a player dies, they control the main points on how the game works, but every now and then, the killed player's could become vicious creatures like the dogs. When the dogs are killed, those players go back into spectator mode until it is time for them to play as another creature. This will keep players occupied if their character is killed.

Edited by xhawkeyex, 22 April 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[lukew23]

Or just make the spectators go into "sponsor" mode. There was recently a minecraft hunger games held by some youtube commentators which I believe highlights the flaws in a multiplayer hunger games experience. They had to commit to being online for the entire time (1hr+) which is probably unrealistic. Making games shorter by emphasising the killing other players aspect simply would deny the whole point of the hunger games - it is about survival and strategy, not an all out bloodbath in the first 10 minutes. I do not think that players would commit to being online for a length of time long enough to accurately portray the hunger games.

The spectator issue is really a non-issue. Once a player is killed, they could go into sponsor/gamesmaster mode (where they can help/hinder the other players - maybe not gamesmaster, as they could just pour lava over everything and kill everyone, as shown in the Minecraft games), as they did in the Minecaft hunger games. Or they could just leave the game. There is no point in forcing them to spectate the rest of the game.

Overall, I think the main issue is creating an experience which is long enough to allow the players to understand the strategy and survival aspect of the games but also making the players commit to being online for long enough to finish the game. (there is no pausing in a multiplayer game and you cannot implement a "rest" feature as in the Elder Scrolls games, as that would require foreknowledge of what each player will do). This could be done on a small scale, with a group of people willing to play in an organised timeframe, but it wouldn't work as a normal multiplayer game.