• 77 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Redsox44 (482 posts) -

I just recently read the whole Hunger Games trilogy and really enjoyed it even though the last book falls kinda flat. Anyway when I was reading it got me thinking how great a video game like this would be.

Think of a single player game that you're thrown into an arena to fight to the death with 23 other ai and the ai operates on a smart system like the ai director in left 4 dead. The game would need to have items that would behave in a way that you expect them to logically. Good sound design that conveys where sound is coming from like the rustle of leaves when someone is sneaking up on you. Make it brutal with a real sense of survival. Then bring that sense of survival to multiplayer. Create interesting arenas that present interesting scenarios to battle, if anything take some cues from The Hunger Games for that.

I think a game like this could be awesome if everything was able to function right with innumerable ways to kill people. An ai director like system will add infinite replayabilty in addition to the entertainment of going up against real people in multiplayer. I hope next gen brings a game like this because I would eat it up. Anyone else want a game like this?

#2 Posted by Dagbiker (6964 posts) -
#3 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -

I think one of the main reasons is because adopting it into currently established genres would be tricky. Games are build around mowing down hundreds of enemies, so only having 20 for the whole game just wouldn't be enough and AI isn't smart enough to make those 20 interesting. Adopting it into an less action focused adventure kind of game would of course be doable, but hard to sell on the big consoles. On DS as a more linear graphic novel something like that might of course be perfectly doable and stuff like 999 already goes somewhat in that direction, but that's of course not exactly the open world'ish kind of survival game that one might want.

#4 Posted by Redsox44 (482 posts) -

@Grumbel: Yea I guess It's not really possible until we can have smart enough A.I but i don't know how far we are from getting there. But it can still be multiplayer only I guess.

#5 Posted by RenMcKormack (1074 posts) -

You wouldn't be allowed to re-spawn then. death has to have a greater impact than say Call of Duty or Halo where most gamers expect to get right back in the action. It would be a tough sell and sounds like it would require alot of production money to make. That said. I am certain Video Game King or somebody will show up and tell you like nine games like this that were made in the 90s on the 3do or something .

I like your idea.

#6 Posted by RenMcKormack (1074 posts) -

Also you could probably make this (multiplayer at least) with some private match settings on one of the older CODs for the PC i bet.

#7 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -
@Redsox44 said:

@Grumbel: Yea I guess It's not really possible until we can have smart enough A.I but i don't know how far we are from getting there. But it can still be multiplayer only I guess.

It's not just the AI, which indeed could be worked around with multiplayer, you'd also need something for the player to do when not fighting, i.e. the preparation and just raw survival would need to play at least some part in the game, otherwise it would just turn into a regular Quake-like deathmatch game. It might be an interesting game for motion controls, as you could do a lot environment manipulation with physics when you have a 3D controller like the Move, kind of like Trespasser but without the issues. With multiplayer there would also be the issue of time, i.e. a round could take quite a while and I don't think there would be many people willing for that kind of commitment. I really hope that we will see a game like that that goes for full immersion, but it's not easy, especially not right now where everybody seems to go the prescripted-cutscene root.
#8 Posted by Redsox44 (482 posts) -

Yea I think it would be a really refreshing game with no respawning. Maybe it could gain interest if It had amazing graphics that blow everything else away? But that's wishing for too much lol

#9 Posted by Redsox44 (482 posts) -

@Grumbel: True it would be really difficult to do if the matches take hours. But maybe they can work in a story excuse like the gamemakers in hunger games that manipulate the arena in with floods and giant walls of Fire,etc, to try and push players towards each other if they're taking too long to engage each other.

#10 Posted by david3cm (635 posts) -

I doubt anyone would make a game about highschoolers killing each other, or would be given the ok to do so. Even if you eliminated that aspect of it, I think the confrontation would have to be somewhat scripted as to when you would encounter other "contestants", or maybe make it more of a stealth game where you would have to choose your battles if you are not equipt well enough to face an opponent. Never read the books, Battle Royale is a pretty sweet movie though.

#11 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

because that would not be very good

#12 Edited by ultimathule (57 posts) -

Yes! I always loved the idea of a Battle Royale game.

An open world survival game set on a large island, one can dream.

#13 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

Ratchet Gladiator.

#14 Posted by Melvargh (490 posts) -
#15 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

You can do this in any multiplayer first-person shooter that really lets you customize your settings. I used to do something similar all the time in Halo 2 & 3. You can't get the 24 like in your head, but you can get to 16.

The real problem here is that players spend an absurd amount of time dead, especially considering the final two will either be going in circles or will be super-defensive. Also, no respawn, guys? Really? You mean, like, Counter-Strike? Or even the no-respawn modes in Call of Duty?

#16 Posted by Inkerman (1451 posts) -

Old thread, but ok, 
  
I agree death needs to be permanent, this game needs to be brutal. While there wouldn't be a big market, a small hardcore fanbase would certainly develop. This would also be one hell of a spectator sport and could take eSports to the next level.

#17 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Redsox44 said:

I just recently read the whole Hunger Games trilogy and really enjoyed it even though the last book falls kinda flat. Anyway when I was reading it got me thinking how great a video game like this would be.

That's weird because I was sitting on the train thinking about this exact thing the other day and came to the exact opposite conclusion. Not that I wouldn't just love to run around murdering minors in horrible ways, but no, just no thanks.

#18 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -
@Little_Socrates said:
The real problem here is that players spend an absurd amount of time dead, 
Why would they need to spend time as dead? Couldn't they just open up another round with another set of players? It wouldn't work when you would want to play with friends, but there shouldn't be much issue when playing online against random enemies.
#19 Posted by Branthog (7510 posts) -

I don't know anything about the Hunger Games, since it's a young adult novel and I haven't exactly set aside time or intentions to ever read it, but I have absolutely thought many times that if we can't have a real life Battle Royale, I would settle for a video game version of it. Unfortunately, in a world where people fucking lose their god damn minds over running over virtual pedestrians in GTA, a game where high school kids battle each other to death on an island would never ever ever fucking fly.

#20 Posted by Djratchet (669 posts) -

I would pay SO MUCH money for a Battle Royale game.

On a related note, I preordered the Bluray collection from Amazon.

#21 Posted by believer258 (11785 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

You can do this in any multiplayer first-person shooter that really lets you customize your settings. I used to do something similar all the time in Halo 2 & 3. You can't get the 24 like in your head, but you can get to 16.

The real problem here is that players spend an absurd amount of time dead, especially considering the final two will either be going in circles or will be super-defensive. Also, no respawn, guys? Really? You mean, like, Counter-Strike? Or even the no-respawn modes in Call of Duty?

This is pretty much what I thought. It's essentially multiplayer.

As for insanely long respawn times? Gears of War had multiplayer modes that wouldn't let you respawn until everyone else was dead. It wasn't bad at all. Actually, unlike CoD it was a damned good incentive to make your own safety a bigger priority than killing some dude. It made you think twice about chasing that one fellow around the corner.

Online
#22 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Little_Socrates said:

You can do this in any multiplayer first-person shooter that really lets you customize your settings. I used to do something similar all the time in Halo 2 & 3. You can't get the 24 like in your head, but you can get to 16.

The real problem here is that players spend an absurd amount of time dead, especially considering the final two will either be going in circles or will be super-defensive. Also, no respawn, guys? Really? You mean, like, Counter-Strike? Or even the no-respawn modes in Call of Duty?

This is pretty much what I thought. It's essentially multiplayer.

As for insanely long respawn times? Gears of War had multiplayer modes that wouldn't let you respawn until everyone else was dead. It wasn't bad at all. Actually, unlike CoD it was a damned good incentive to make your own safety a bigger priority than killing some dude. It made you think twice about chasing that one fellow around the corner.

The difference between those modes in what's already out there (again, they are totally in Call of Duty too,) is that a free-for-all game for 16-24 players with no respawn requires a pretty huge map to not be entirely based on who spawns where. With everybody chasing down everybody, nowhere is safe, so the game becomes absurdly defensive for most moderately skilled players. Eventually, when it comes down to the final two or three people, if they're all playing defensively, you're sitting for a very long time waiting for someone to give up their advantage and go take the offensive. In an objective based game, that's fine, and in a team-based game for 5-10 people like Gears, the map is small enough to facilitate that. But it's the FFA element that's drastically going to affect the way people play.

@Grumbel said:

@Little_Socrates said:
The real problem here is that players spend an absurd amount of time dead,
Why would they need to spend time as dead? Couldn't they just open up another round with another set of players? It wouldn't work when you would want to play with friends, but there shouldn't be much issue when playing online against random enemies.

That would be fine playing against randoms, but, as you said, would not work at all when playing with friends. Combining friends with randoms could be based around a party system, too, so that would work okay.

Another thing that occurs to me as to why this hasn't been the focus of a game is because multiplayer shooters focus on variety these days. This, or a team-based version of it in more team-based shooters, is almost always an option, but they'd rather offer it as a gametype than the main focus that they have to balance into CTF, bomb modes, VIP, etc.

#23 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2991 posts) -

You could have leaderboards listing the top surviving players and have people move around servers dynamically so as to avoid cheating the system. Last man standing simply moves on to the next server still alive with the same equipment and ammo as where they left off.

#24 Edited by Redsox44 (482 posts) -

@BrockNRolla:@Branthog: Well it doesn't have to be about high school kids, they could come up with whatever reason for adults being forced to fight it out. I'm more interested in having a game that provides a big toolbox of options to defeat your enemies while at the same time you know there are 23 other contestants plotting to kill you in their own unique way. As long as the tools given to the player give the illusion of being able to do anything, that almost every match you play unfolds differently. I'm not saying this would be an easy game to make of course but I believe if it's possible to have these types of stories in books and movies that it's also somehow possible to bring it to video games. Someone just needs to do the hard work and figure out how to make it work in the same way those books and movies do while still keeping the fun factor.

I think it can be done. My brainstorm idea goes like this. Say there are 4 different character types that have different bonuses that encourage different playstyles. Everyone one would choose one before the match starts and end up with 6 of each class. Those 4 classes could be say a big tough guy, a fast sneaky girl, a defensive girl, and a smarter type guy.

- The big tough guy could deal the most offense damage physically and absorb the most damage. - The fast sneaky girl would be able to traverse all areas faster and be good at catching enemies unexpected

- The defensive girl would be able to lay down traps like a hunter and have some kind of ranged attack like archery.

-And the smart type would know how to combine items in crazy ways to create more powerful traps and possibly weapons but be physically weak.

These classes aren't perfect but if someone designed something similar and worked out the balance I think it could be really interesting. As for the problem with having people playing too defensive and that match going on forever I introduce you to my favorite arena from the hunger games books. The Clock Arena.

In the book the players are stuck on a large circular island with significantly different types of land all around. It looks normal enough until an hour passes and all sorts of terrible things happen all around the island some worse than others. To cut to the chase some of the players figure out that the island is split into 12 zones that have different events like a tsunami that wipes out everything in that zone and those different zones are moving clockwise around the island. They quickly figure out that the small center is the only place not affected by any of the zones so every hour players are encouraged to escape the terrors of the outside zones by running to the center and then are forced into combat with the others. That is just one of the cool arenas in the hunger games, but that one stuck with me. Obviously for a game the zones would have to move at an accelerated pace instead of every hour. Also throw in a system for creating alliances could lead to some really cool betrayals down the road. Just another interesting dynamic that has to be included in this type of story.

I've already typed too much lol. I just would like a video game that challenges your survival skills more, considering it's the most interactive entertainment medium. I'm sure it's much tougher to actually execute on the idea but I have no reason to believe it can't be done.

#25 Posted by XxBarretxX (307 posts) -

Anarchy Reigns anyone? due out sometimes soon I believe. Made by Platinum Games too so you know it will have phenominal gameplay.

#26 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

Yes. I've been asking myself that ever since I saw the movie years ago. If done right, it could be fantastic.

#27 Posted by FateOfNever (1830 posts) -

Man, no one's mentioned Manhunt yet? I mean, I know it's not exactly the same thing, but, it is along the same lines of the idea. There's also Bloody Good Time which is again similar, but slightly more light hearted.

A game sort of designed around this idea is certainly possible. You'd have to go through a lot of effort to make it something that people would care about though.

#28 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

It's called WWE Smackdown, WWE Smackdown Just Bring It, and WWE Smackdown vs. Raw.

#29 Posted by CJduke (788 posts) -

I hate how much attention The Hunger Games is getting when it is 100% a rip off of Battle Royale, which is one of the greatest books ever written.

#30 Posted by GorillaMoPena (2043 posts) -

So what you are saying is they should have made a game based off the movie The Condemned,

#31 Posted by Hailinel (24385 posts) -

I think that Battle Royale would make for an interesting survival game, but a more workable concept might be to stage the game as a series of chapters on the island from the perspectives of different characters, sort of like how the story is depicted in the novel. Each chapter could have its own unique survival and combat challenges, plus unique events tied to specific characters. (Such as one girl in the novel who goes completely mad and thinks she's the heroine in a magical girl anime, as one extreme example.)

#32 Posted by Nottle (1912 posts) -

I've never read the book or watched Battle Royal but I know the premise and it seems like an cool idea. I'm imagining some of the better boss battles of MGS3, Think about the Fear and the End. Your in these big environments, traps are set up, and you have to hunt down your enemy before they hunt you. Your able to pull off some clever tricks and gain the upper hand by using poisonous food or by just blending in and using what is around you to your advantage. It would be interesting to be in an environment and just know out there they are planning something so you have to find any weapon you can, even sticks, rocks, or traps that you make to deal with your enemies.

#33 Posted by StingerMK2 (386 posts) -

iv been coming up with the idea for a game for a while, and one of the big things was a multiplayer mode like this, i figured the best way to do it would be have a one off tournament once a week that each player can only enter once, everyone starts from scratch, and gets dropped into a server with how ever many others, they'd be basic survival mechanics such as hunger which would prevent camping, but also the ability to build a small base to give the players something to do if they want to avoid the conflict. the map would obviously pretty big, also as rip off as it is, it would have to have Zonal illiminations to allow the match to progress somewhat naturally, i figured the match should last an hour or something and have some prize money divided up between all of the survivors, with a massive bonus if there is a sole survivor, all survivors move onto another round with all their equipment intact for bigger and better prizes,

however iv recently shifted the game idea to be more of an SRPG, so i doubt it would work too well anymore,

#34 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

After watching the anime Future Diary, I'm still surprised that there's been no video game that has had the concept of "a relatively small number of contestants—each perhaps with unique skills/equipment—forced to hunt each other down and kill one another until one remains." Like Future Diary, this wouldn't even need to be grounded in some sort of reality like Battle Royale or The Hunger Games, but perhaps also deal with supernatural elements.

It wouldn't even have to be as ambitious an idea as some people are thinking. It could just be a really linear, story focused game with setpieces and such.

Maybe this is a more popular theme in Japan, where there might be several visual novels that use that concept already? The only video game I can think of is Dangan Ronpa, part of a franchise that will probably never make it in North America. Fighting game tournament styles like Mortal Kombat or Xenophage aren't quite what I think of in regards to this topic.

#35 Posted by crithon (3121 posts) -

for some reason I'm thinking those import anime games of Cowboy Bebop on PS1 or Gurren Lagann on DS. Just mediocre simple games that never satisfy that itch I have for that franchise, and I spent 70 bucks on shipping.

#36 Posted by BoG (5187 posts) -

Well, this is an old thread, but I had not seen it before. I have a few words to say on the topic.

I want this game.

I don't buy the idea that it wouldn't work simply because "20 enemies isn't enough for a long and fun action game." Bull. Shadow of the Colossus was great, and it only had sixteen enemies! This is an unfair comparison, however. We would expect a Battle Royale, Hunger Games, Running Man, or whatever game to have a bit more action. Personally, I would want it to be a game with a limited number of enemies, each one being a character. It would add a lot to the game.

To say it's impossible to adapt this into a game is, once again, bull. A talented and creative developer could absolutely pull it off. 20 enemies does not mean 20 encounters. Each encounter doesn't have to end up with a kill. You could have tough battles that end in a draw, you could have chases, etc. Maybe you have a love interest (like in the BR film), but she's taken captive by another player who thinks he can get two kills by holding her hostage. You can rescue her and escape without killing him. There are tons of ways to add value to a game like this.

I really really hope someone takes this concept and turns it into a sweet video game.

#37 Posted by DarthOrange (3858 posts) -

I think it sounds more awesome in theory then in practice because it would probably be way to short. Unless it was done in the style of the Walking Dead, which would be pretty damn awesome!

#38 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

Unless it was done in the style of the Walking Dead, which would be pretty damn awesome!

Yep. An adventure game in the style of TWD would fit this concept perfectly. It doesn't have to be an open-world action game to work. There are so many ways something like this could work, yet it's never been done.

#39 Posted by dandead (171 posts) -

I would just like to point out that ARMA 2 would be an excellent game to make a BR mod for. That gives me an idea actually...

Also Day-Z could be considered a BR game with zombies in it I suppose.

#40 Edited by ReCkLeSs_X (460 posts) -

I definitely agree that a game in the style of TWD would fit this world quite well. Just trying to wrap my head around the concept of this being an "open world" game seems like it would be much more of a challenge to implement. That being said, I'd love to see it attempted, however, I can say the success of a game like this needs to have a strong narrative - something to which TWD can be credited for.

With it's potential, I think scenes like [Hunger Games Spoiler] Rue's death can have monumental effects on the player.

One can certainly approach this from a purely gameplay perspective, which, as mentioned, would be rather tricky - unless it was told in the form of a narrative (i.e. chapters) as linear tale, which brings us back to the TWD method of gametype.

Online
#41 Posted by MikkaQ (10283 posts) -

Call me sick, but... I'd rather watch BR than interact with it. One of those voyeuristic things, I guess.

#42 Posted by kermoosh (911 posts) -

the game probably wouldn't be very long, unless its like you said random with ai director

the other problem is that it would just consists of killing people. most of the tension in the movies is hiding in a tree or something trying to survive which would be boring in a video game

#43 Posted by Turambar (6733 posts) -

Far Cry 3 open island style, letting the environment provide a challenge so there isn't only 20 enemies.

Each character has unique skills and crafting abilities.

Items crafted from materials harvested from the environment.

Risk and reward: animals that hold the materials to craft good equipment are hard to kill, and players that kill you get your equipment.

A timer that results in character death to prevent players from being too defensive.

#44 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

@kermoosh said:

the other problem is that it would just consists of killing people. most of the tension in the movies is hiding in a tree or something trying to survive which would be boring in a video game

You pretty much just described The Walking Dead there, which is the VGAs game of the year and currently the highest rated 2012 game on Metacritic.

#45 Posted by NFXFSX (15 posts) -

@Turambar said:

Far Cry 3 open island style, letting the environment provide a challenge so there isn't only 20 enemies.

Each character has unique skills and crafting abilities.

Items crafted from materials harvested from the environment.

Risk and reward: animals that hold the materials to craft good equipment are hard to kill, and players that kill you get your equipment.

A timer that results in character death to prevent players from being too defensive.

This would be perfect.

#46 Edited by SomeJerk (3213 posts) -

I played the early stages of an Operation Flashpoint mod along the lines of BR. Random spawns, random weapons, seagull-spectator mode for the dead. Hella thrill to be one of the last few survivors and get pushed into a tiny village. At the time it was best played with decent people of course since they had no way to killfield an entire zone and we were nice enough to act the part and gun it for where we had to be.
 
Is there potential in a BR style game? Hell yes, for next generation consoles unless somebody works a miracle with Microsoft's restrictions on bandwidth.
 
Is there sales potential? Hell yes, Hunger Games it.
 
Would focus groups whine and turn it into a COD clone? You betcha.

#47 Posted by GrandMarshal (387 posts) -

I would pay money for a good battle royal style game

#48 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -

@SomeJerk said:

Would focus groups whine and turn it into a COD clone? You betcha.

Noooo!

This would be rectified by having the game's initial, fundamental design reject firearms.

#49 Edited by kermoosh (911 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ said:

@kermoosh said:

the other problem is that it would just consists of killing people. most of the tension in the movies is hiding in a tree or something trying to survive which would be boring in a video game

You pretty much just described The Walking Dead there, which is the VGAs game of the year and currently the highest rated 2012 game on Metacritic.

kinda yeah but i'm thinking of it in a sense where everyone is trying to kill you and you're trying to kill them so there's not much character development (which the walking dead contains a lot of) and more just people dying. In battle royale and hunger games, the main party hides in a tree or something for hours and the only talk is what their next plan will be. I just think that there would be a lack of story or character development in a 'free for all' type of game (unless the main character likes to talk aloud constantly)

#50 Posted by Jeff (3486 posts) -

@Redsox44: Totally. That's a great idea. I had hoped that Far Cry 2 would sort of end up like that, with the way it plugged different characters into slots when certain characters died and all that.

Staff