★ TouchArcade needs your help. Click here to support us on Patreon.

How About This for an Idea for a Game

01-25-2010, 11:06 PM
#1
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 472
How About This for an Idea for a Game

In response to all of the recent game idea threads, I began thinking about what a cool or unique game would be. Now, I do not have the tools nor the ability to develop any game, but I thought this was a cool idea.

Idea: Pick up and play tower defense / dual stick shooter / RTS

Bear with me, I know that sounds ridiculous (especially for a pick up and play game)

The player begins with one tower in one corner of the screen.The tower is stationary and the map is stationary as well. The iphone is in landscape and the player can control the tower. The tower acts like the shooting stick in a dual stick shooter. When a player puts his or her thumb on it, it fires. When the player drags his or her thumb over the tower, the shooting mechanism follows.What would make this game interesting, however, is that very quickly the player will be able to build up to four towers to control (one per corner). This will keep the gameplay fast paced and exciting as the player only has two thumbs which can only control one tower per side. The goal is to prevent enemies from attacking your tower. Enemies spawn from the center of the map. These enemies don't just rush you like in castle defense games, they can shoot at you from a distance. The area in the middle of the screen is not just all flat. The environment changes with obstacles appearing and disappearing as the game progresses. Obstacles can benefit either the player or his or her enemies depending on the type of obstacle and it's placement. Obstacles can both be placed on the map by the player and the enemy. Players can potentially stop the enemy from building such structures by destroying the units creating them, and the enemy can do likewise to the player by destroying the obstacle faster than it is being built. Adding the the unpredictable gameplay, Some obstacles can also appear naturally. As the game progresses, new enemy units and abilities are revealed. A wealth of tower types, tower upgrades, items, and special abilities are available to the player to unlock and purchase as the game progresses. Decisions made early on in the game would impact the player's future purchasing options. This would add an RPG element to the game making it unique to the player and giving it insane replayability. One rout for upgrades could be one which focusses more on unit deployment than tower shooting. Instead of having a tower in one corner, a player could have a kind of defenseless unit-creating building which can be upgraded in a similar style as many RTS games allowing for new units and/or unit improvements. Such units would be uncontrollable once deployed to keep the game simple; minor AI would be needed. Heck, unit AI could be a category for upgrades; more "training" would translate into more effective automatic unit strategies. There could be different classes of units requiring different buildings and even buildings that mix classes allowing for only the lesser units. Another "tower" option could be a R&D (research and development) tower that's sole purpose is to both increase the ease of upgrading and the limit of upgrades. Such buildings could be created and properly maintained in such a way to create super towers or super units later in the game. Another "tower" option could be one focussed on economic upgrades such as money earned per kill (payback), cost of units (military efficiency), cost of obstacles and items (Bartering Tools), gradual cash earned over time (taxes), and increased probability of random large cash bonuses (loopholes). There could also be a repair "tower" for repairing damaged towers and obstacles which could eventually gain the ability to fortify towers and obstacles. There could also be a hospital "tower" that units could retreat to if injured (given they have enough "training"). All of this while also having a wide variety of upgradable user controlled towers. While all previously mentioned non towers may seem far superior to a regular tower, one must remember that there is a constant onslaught of enemy units (and potentially bosses) that could be effectively be destroyed with super weapons such as towers without having to continuously pay for units. One must also remember that the goal of the enemy is to destroy the player's towers, so anything but a true tower would be unable to directly (or in some cases even indirectly) defend itself. Thus, there are enough trade offs that neither the RTS or unistick shooter method clearly has the advantage. This allows the player to create a gaming experience that can be either focussed on one or the other or a blend of both. Either way, given the number of options that should be available to the player in terms of towers, tower upgrades, items, units, obstacles, and upgrades for these tools, every game will be unique. The game would also include a changing environment in which the mechanics of the game would change over time. As waves come and go, so does time. Night and day switch off with each wave and seasons gradually change. The game would feature a minimal story mostly consisting of enemy activity and your country or planet's activity that would influence the play of the game. Examples of this could be economic depression, exciting research, unprecedented discoveries, elections, changes in policy, and civilian protests that could take place either on the side of your military or your enemies. Such events would be scripted in such a way that they could be shuffled and still be logical. There would be enough events that each would appear once at the most in each play through. Such events could trigger boss battles that would be necessary to spice up the game. The stage of the game would be a boss battle. There would be several final bosses which would be triggered an event leading to the weakening of your enemy which would be determined by the player's decisions. For example, a player focussing heavily on economic research would trigger an event in which the enemy sinks into a depression so deep that it must make a last stand using only the weapons it has left. This boss would be a super-scrap-bot which would barrade you with constant fire but would be inherently weak due to its junk components and thus posses comparatively little hp. Another example could be if the player invested a lot in research. The event would be that the enemy discovered/stole the research and invested the last of their resources into creating a high-tech super device which would have high hp and good weaponry, but absolutely no support from lesser units. If this wasn't properly implied by my previous description, the game would simply be a series of waves of enemies and bosses with both the enemy and player being influenced by time, season, and war-related events. There would be a set number of waves to survive before the final boss battle. What would make the game "pick up and play" would be that each wave would be fairly short (2-3 min max), and the game would automatically save after each wave. Thus, players could play the game one wave at a time during short periods of down time. If multiplayer is possible to develop (I know that this is easier said than done), this could be done through having one player be the standard player and the other be the enemy. The enemy player would upgrade in a similar manor to the RTS element of the standard player's game, but be given the initial advantage in terms of units, items, obstacles, and cash. The enemy player would also have expensive boss units up his sleeve to slowly save money for. To counter this advantage, the standard player would be able to upgrade at a slightly greater rate due to lower prices, easier unlockability, and/or steadier cash flow. This would create a scenario in which the challenge for the enemy player would be to break the standard player as quickly as possible while the standard player must simply to to survive as in the standard single player game until he is strong enough to overtake the enemy player.

Thoughts?

GameLoft Live / openfeint / plus+: deiden26
01-25-2010, 11:07 PM
#2
Solid block of text, I seriously can't read it. Can you seperate it into seperate thoughts?

01-25-2010, 11:07 PM
#3
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,248
01-25-2010, 11:34 PM
#4
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 472
Good Point Kunning:


Separate Paragraphs Version:

Basic Concept:

The player begins with one tower in one corner of the screen.The tower is stationary and the map is stationary as well. The iphone is in landscape and the player can control the tower. The tower acts like the shooting stick in a dual stick shooter. When a player puts his or her thumb on it, it fires. When the player drags his or her thumb over the tower, the shooting mechanism follows.What would make this game interesting, however, is that very quickly the player will be able to build up to four towers to control (one per corner). This will keep the gameplay fast paced and exciting as the player only has two thumbs which can only control one tower per side. The goal is to prevent waves of enemies from damaging your tower. Enemies spawn from the center of the map and try to attack your towers, obstacles, units, etc. (more on the latter few attacked elements later). These enemies don't just rush you like in castle defense games, they can shoot at you from a distance.

Gameplay Field:

The area in the middle of the screen is not just all flat. The environment changes with obstacles appearing and disappearing as the game progresses. Obstacles can benefit either the player or his or her enemies depending on the type of obstacle and it's placement. Obstacles can both be placed on the map by the player and the enemy. Players can potentially stop the enemy from building such structures by destroying the units creating them, and the enemy can do likewise to the player by destroying the obstacle faster than it is being built. Adding the the unpredictable gameplay, Some obstacles can also appear naturally.

Basic RPG Concept:

As the game progresses, new enemy units and abilities are revealed. At the same time, a wealth of tower types, tower upgrades, obstacles, items, and special abilities are available for the player to unlock and purchase as the game progresses. Decisions made early on in the game would impact the player's future purchasing options. This would add an RPG element to the game making it unique to the player and giving it insane replayability.

Developed RPG Concept:

One rout for upgrades could be one which focusses more on unit deployment than tower shooting. Instead of having a tower in one corner, a player could have a kind of defenseless unit-creating building which can be upgraded in a similar style as many RTS games allowing for new units and/or unit improvements. Such units would be uncontrollable once deployed to keep the game simple; minor AI would be needed. Heck, unit AI could be a category for upgrades; more "training" would translate into more effective automatic unit strategies. There could be different classes of units requiring different buildings and even buildings that mix classes allowing for only the lesser units. Another "tower" option could be a R&D (research and development) tower that's sole purpose is to both increase the ease of upgrading and the limit of upgrades. Such buildings could be created and properly maintained in such a way to create super towers or super units later in the game. Another "tower" option could be one focussed on economic upgrades such as money earned per kill (payback), cost of units (military efficiency), cost of obstacles and items (Bartering Tools), gradual cash earned over time (taxes), and increased probability of random large cash bonuses (loopholes). There could also be a repair "tower" for repairing damaged towers and obstacles which could eventually gain the ability to fortify towers and obstacles. There could also be a hospital "tower" that units could retreat to if injured (given they have enough "training"). All of this while also having a wide variety of upgradable user controlled towers. While all previously mentioned non towers may seem far superior to a regular tower, one must remember that there is a constant onslaught of enemy units (and potentially bosses) that could be effectively be destroyed with super weapons such as towers without having to continuously pay for units. One must also remember that the goal of the enemy is to destroy the player's towers, so anything but a true tower would be unable to directly (or in some cases even indirectly) defend itself. Thus, there are enough trade offs that neither the RTS nor "unistick shooter" method has a clear advantage. This allows the player to create a gaming experience that can be either focussed on one or the other or a blend of both. Either way, given the number of options that should be available to the player in terms of towers, tower upgrades, items, units, obstacles, and upgrades for these tools, every game will be unique.

Gameplay Variables:

The game would also include a changing environment in which the mechanics of the game would change over time. As waves come and go, so does time. Night and day switch off with each wave and seasons gradually change. The game would feature a minimal story mostly consisting of enemy activity and your country or planet's activity that would influence the play of the game. Examples of this could be economic depression, exciting research, unprecedented discoveries, elections, changes in policy, and civilian protests that could take place either on the side of your military or your enemies. Such events would be scripted in such a way that they could be shuffled and still be logical. There would be enough events that each would appear once at the most in each play through. Such events could trigger boss battles that would be necessary to spice up the game.

Final Wave:

The Final stage of the game would be a boss battle. There would be several final bosses which would be triggered an event leading to the weakening of your enemy which would be determined by the player's decisions. For example, a player focussing heavily on economic research would trigger an event in which the enemy sinks into a depression so deep that it must make a last stand using only the weapons it has left. This boss would be a super-scrap-bot which would barrade you with constant fire but would be inherently weak due to its junk components and thus posses comparatively little hp. Another example could be if the player invested a lot in research. The event would be that the enemy discovered/stole the research and invested the last of their resources into creating a high-tech super device which would have high hp and good weaponry, but absolutely no support from lesser units.

Important Etc:

If this wasn't properly implied by my previous description, the game would simply be a series of waves of enemies and bosses with both the enemy and player being influenced by time, season, and war-related events. There would be a set number of waves to survive before the final boss battle. What would make the game "pick up and play" would be that each wave would be fairly short (2-3 min max), and the game would automatically save after each wave. Thus, players could play the game one wave at a time during short periods of down time.

Multiplayer Possibilities:

If multiplayer is possible to develop (I know that this is easier said than done), this could be done through having one player be the standard player and the other be the enemy. The enemy player would upgrade in a similar manor to the RTS element of the standard player's game, but be given the initial advantage in terms of units, items, obstacles, and cash. The enemy player would also have expensive boss units up his sleeve to slowly save money for. To counter this advantage, the standard player would be able to upgrade at a slightly greater rate due to lower prices, easier unlockability, and/or steadier cash flow. This would create a scenario in which the challenge for the enemy player would be to break the standard player as quickly as possible while the standard player must simply to to survive — as in the standard single player game — until he is strong enough to overtake the enemy player.

GameLoft Live / openfeint / plus+: deiden26
01-25-2010, 11:35 PM
#5
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Australia, mate!
Posts: 8,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by deiden26 View Post
In response to all of the recent game idea threads, I began thinking about what a cool or unique game would be. Now, I do not have the tools nor the ability to develop any game, but I thought this was a cool idea.

Idea: Pick up and play tower defense / dual stick shooter / RTS

Bear with me, I know that sounds ridiculous (especially for a pick up and play game)

The player begins with one tower in one corner of the screen.The tower is stationary and the map is stationary as well. The iphone is in landscape and the player can control the tower. The tower acts like the shooting stick in a dual stick shooter. When a player puts his or her thumb on it, it fires. When the player drags his or her thumb over the tower, the shooting mechanism follows.What would make this game interesting, however, is that very quickly the player will be able to build up to four towers to control (one per corner). This will keep the gameplay fast paced and exciting as the player only has two thumbs which can only control one tower per side. The goal is to prevent enemies from attacking your tower. Enemies spawn from the center of the map. These enemies don't just rush you like in castle defense games, they can shoot at you from a distance. The area in the middle of the screen is not just all flat. The environment changes with obstacles appearing and disappearing as the game progresses. Obstacles can benefit either the player or his or her enemies depending on the type of obstacle and it's placement. Obstacles can both be placed on the map by the player and the enemy. Players can potentially stop the enemy from building such structures by destroying the units creating them, and the enemy can do likewise to the player by destroying the obstacle faster than it is being built. Adding the the unpredictable gameplay, Some obstacles can also appear naturally. As the game progresses, new enemy units and abilities are revealed. A wealth of tower types, tower upgrades, items, and special abilities are available to the player to unlock and purchase as the game progresses. Decisions made early on in the game would impact the player's future purchasing options. This would add an RPG element to the game making it unique to the player and giving it insane replayability. One rout for upgrades could be one which focusses more on unit deployment than tower shooting. Instead of having a tower in one corner, a player could have a kind of defenseless unit-creating building which can be upgraded in a similar style as many RTS games allowing for new units and/or unit improvements. Such units would be uncontrollable once deployed to keep the game simple; minor AI would be needed. Heck, unit AI could be a category for upgrades; more "training" would translate into more effective automatic unit strategies. There could be different classes of units requiring different buildings and even buildings that mix classes allowing for only the lesser units. Another "tower" option could be a R&D (research and development) tower that's sole purpose is to both increase the ease of upgrading and the limit of upgrades. Such buildings could be created and properly maintained in such a way to create super towers or super units later in the game. Another "tower" option could be one focussed on economic upgrades such as money earned per kill (payback), cost of units (military efficiency), cost of obstacles and items (Bartering Tools), gradual cash earned over time (taxes), and increased probability of random large cash bonuses (loopholes). There could also be a repair "tower" for repairing damaged towers and obstacles which could eventually gain the ability to fortify towers and obstacles. There could also be a hospital "tower" that units could retreat to if injured (given they have enough "training"). All of this while also having a wide variety of upgradable user controlled towers. While all previously mentioned non towers may seem far superior to a regular tower, one must remember that there is a constant onslaught of enemy units (and potentially bosses) that could be effectively be destroyed with super weapons such as towers without having to continuously pay for units. One must also remember that the goal of the enemy is to destroy the player's towers, so anything but a true tower would be unable to directly (or in some cases even indirectly) defend itself. Thus, there are enough trade offs that neither the RTS or unistick shooter method clearly has the advantage. This allows the player to create a gaming experience that can be either focussed on one or the other or a blend of both. Either way, given the number of options that should be available to the player in terms of towers, tower upgrades, items, units, obstacles, and upgrades for these tools, every game will be unique. The game would also include a changing environment in which the mechanics of the game would change over time. As waves come and go, so does time. Night and day switch off with each wave and seasons gradually change. The game would feature a minimal story mostly consisting of enemy activity and your country or planet's activity that would influence the play of the game. Examples of this could be economic depression, exciting research, unprecedented discoveries, elections, changes in policy, and civilian protests that could take place either on the side of your military or your enemies. Such events would be scripted in such a way that they could be shuffled and still be logical. There would be enough events that each would appear once at the most in each play through. Such events could trigger boss battles that would be necessary to spice up the game. The stage of the game would be a boss battle. There would be several final bosses which would be triggered an event leading to the weakening of your enemy which would be determined by the player's decisions. For example, a player focussing heavily on economic research would trigger an event in which the enemy sinks into a depression so deep that it must make a last stand using only the weapons it has left. This boss would be a super-scrap-bot which would barrade you with constant fire but would be inherently weak due to its junk components and thus posses comparatively little hp. Another example could be if the player invested a lot in research. The event would be that the enemy discovered/stole the research and invested the last of their resources into creating a high-tech super device which would have high hp and good weaponry, but absolutely no support from lesser units. If this wasn't properly implied by my previous description, the game would simply be a series of waves of enemies and bosses with both the enemy and player being influenced by time, season, and war-related events. There would be a set number of waves to survive before the final boss battle. What would make the game "pick up and play" would be that each wave would be fairly short (2-3 min max), and the game would automatically save after each wave. Thus, players could play the game one wave at a time during short periods of down time. If multiplayer is possible to develop (I know that this is easier said than done), this could be done through having one player be the standard player and the other be the enemy. The enemy player would upgrade in a similar manor to the RTS element of the standard player's game, but be given the initial advantage in terms of units, items, obstacles, and cash. The enemy player would also have expensive boss units up his sleeve to slowly save money for. To counter this advantage, the standard player would be able to upgrade at a slightly greater rate due to lower prices, easier unlockability, and/or steadier cash flow. This would create a scenario in which the challenge for the enemy player would be to break the standard player as quickly as possible while the standard player must simply to to survive as in the standard single player game until he is strong enough to overtake the enemy player.

Thoughts?
OMG. Biggest Wall of Text I've ever seen!
01-26-2010, 12:16 AM
#6
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random_Guy View Post
OMG. Biggest Wall of Text I've ever seen!
Yeah, it's a lot, but it would be great to get some feedback! I put a good amount of thought into this idea, and I would love to hear at least one response to it. I promise it is coherent

GameLoft Live / openfeint / plus+: deiden26
01-26-2010, 12:16 AM
#7
Quote:
Originally Posted by deiden26 View Post
Yeah, it's a lot, but it would be great to get some feedback! I put a good amount of thought into this idea, and I would love to hear at least one response to it. I promise it is coherent
Give me a day
01-26-2010, 12:18 AM
#8
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,248
tl; drm

Has good points though. Would love to see it implemented.
01-26-2010, 12:19 AM
#9
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: WHO KNOWS
Posts: 3,138
Ever heard of paragraphs?
01-26-2010, 12:22 AM
#10
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Australia, mate!
Posts: 8,419
What is this 'paragraph' you speak of?