If you had an idea for a game

[Craig234]

I have an idea for a game I think could do just fine.

But what if you wanted to try to get it made? Think of the budget, investors; finding a developer; finding a publisher; marketing, etc.

I guess the option now is to find the developer, do a kickstarter, cross your fingers and go from there - probably with some need for secondary funding.

Of course, if just discussing the idea doesn't get it stolen.

Heck I'll mention a second idea just for the discussion - how about a real simulation of climbing Mt. Everest? Complete with sherpas, beautiful graphics, random events, realism?

Gameplay details and rewards would be worked out - require planning choices, give the players choices - what to pack, should he try a dangerous crossing.

A bit light on the diversity of gameplay, though. But people like sims.

There could even be an educational aspect to it, such as many not being aware of how breathing is affected on the climb, requiring conscious effort.

Perhaps incorporate realtime weather conditions on the mountain into the game as one option instead of random.

 

[Ancalagon44]

If you want to do something like that, do it yourself.

Start building a prototype. See if you can sell that. Learn any skills that you would need to build the prototype. That or pay someone to build it for you.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. In fact, one dime can buy you a truckload of ideas.

Execution is what matters.

Picture you are the head of your own successful video game company. You have highly skilled and motivated staff who have just launched a successful game. You want to give them a new project.

Do you
A) give them a project yourself?
B) take idea submissions from the team itself and have the team vote on the ideas
C) make whatever game your publisher tells you to?
D) build a game based on an idea that someone submitted to you in the Internet?

I hope you can see why D will never happen.

 

[rivethead]

Heck I'll mention a second idea just for the discussion - how about a real simulation of climbing Mt. Everest? Complete with sherpas, beautiful graphics, random events, realism?

Gameplay details and rewards would be worked out - require planning choices, give the players choices - what to pack, should he try a dangerous crossing.

A bit light on the diversity of gameplay, though. But people like sims.

There could even be an educational aspect to it, such as many not being aware of how breathing is affected on the climb, requiring conscious effort.

Perhaps incorporate realtime weather conditions on the mountain into the game as one option instead of random.

I will buy this game.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I always wondered about game pitches.

"You're this fat plumber see? And you got this brother, you and this brother run around smashing bricks with your head looking for coins! But like..some blocks have hints telling you to hit them and others don't!!! You run around jumping on these mushroom guys. Also, get this... you eat these OTHER mushrooms that make you grow big. What? Well, yes they are magic mushrooms.......no, no I haven't been eating any of Hidero's special stash..."

*The above is a dramatization. It is known that some characters were established before the above fictional game was created.

 

[magomago]

A game where you spend 3 real time weeks sitting in a camp, and most of the "action" is just endless hours of step after step with limited visibility? Not to mention that 99% of random events will result in abandoning the attempt?
Ya'll may not be big hikers, but you are mostly consciously focused on your steps, and you have to stop and physically turn your head/body to look at any scenery...

It sounds initially cool, but if its a realistic sim it will be boring.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

My idea for a game is the same one it's been for 20 years, with only an increase in geographical size: A huge first person shooter wargame, where it's like you're playing Battlefield from your own point of view, but the world size is huge. Like Planetside 2 but 100 times bigger, and there are limited fuel, limited ammunition, limited vehicles (blowing up fuel tanks and lines reduces the operation of range of enemy vehicles, or a side will start with 2000 tanks, and if they all get blown up then you don't have any more except maybe a trickle from factories), the ability to control capital naval ships/aircraft carriers, a victory condition that can lead the game to be set up for 2-3 days to 6 months,etc.

Though in more recent years I've gone from wanting that on Earth to a Star Wars themed one where you're fighting for control of every planet in the galaxy, can control your own Star Destroyer or Interdictor Cruiser.

 

[cbrunny]

So basically you want just giant PvP mmos.

Pass.

 

[Stringjam]

I would think the first thing would be to get a proof of concept working.

I'm personally not a fan of Kickstarters that don't show significant development before starting the campaign.

You wouldn't need to hire a developer, per se, but you will need a bit of investment to hire a team to put it together. You see these offers a lot over on game dev forums (Cryengine, Unreal, etc...). There's a lot of pro-quality folks in these places who will take on such a project, but I imagine you'll need a decent bit of cash to get it done (modellers, texture artists, programmers, animators, audio engineers, etc.).

 

[Craig234]

My idea for a game is the same one it's been for 20 years, with only an increase in geographical size: A huge first person shooter wargame, where it's like you're playing Battlefield from your own point of view, but the world size is huge. Like Planetside 2 but 100 times bigger, and there are limited fuel, limited ammunition, limited vehicles (blowing up fuel tanks and lines reduces the operation of range of enemy vehicles, or a side will start with 2000 tanks, and if they all get blown up then you don't have any more except maybe a trickle from factories), the ability to control capital naval ships/aircraft carriers, a victory condition that can lead the game to be set up for 2-3 days to 6 months,etc.

So basically you want just giant PvP mmos.

Pass.

Pretty remarkable call by maniacalpha predicting the battle royale genre, e.g., fortnite.

 

[DigDog]

1. can you code?
if yes, start making it. once you have the barebones up you'll have more options open to you.
if no, 2. can you pay?
if yes, you already have options, and since you're asking here, then you probably can't. so 3. can you do anything special?
if yes, go out and promote yourself to people who can either pay or code.
If no, sit down.

making games is a business, in the sense that it's an enterprise, it takes organization and money and effort and resources and knowledge. Do you have these?
Having a good idea isn't enough. Everyone has a good idea, some people have many, some have AMAZING ideas, and sometimes even famous, experienced, renowned coders can completely mess it up: fable, spore, daikatana, etc.

 

[Craig234]

Everyone has a good idea

You could hardly be more wrong.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Heck I'll mention a second idea just for the discussion - how about a real simulation of climbing Mt. Everest? Complete with sherpas, beautiful graphics, random events, realism?

Ever play 'Alpiner' on the Ti 99/4a? It has what you wanted. In glorious Z80-era graphics.

 

[Craig234]

Ever play 'Alpiner' on the Ti 99/4a? It has what you wanted. In glorious Z80-era graphics.

I've never heard of a game like that - in fact, I ran across my post in a random google search and had no memory of the idea.