Ladies and gentlemen, a poll if you will....

Hey guys, I have a question for all of you fps players out there. I've recently gotten into an argument with my roommate concerning his idea for "the ultimate realistic war-shooter game." Now, my question to you is simple: would you ever buy this game? Now, the idea is mostly conceptual at the moment, so you might have to use a little imagination....

Okay, it goes like this:

This game is a modern, realistic war game similar to games like Call of Duty 4, Ghost Recon, etc. It has a single player and multiplayer component. The multiplayer will play somewhat similarly to these games, with an emphasis on as much "realism" as possible. Make of that what you will.

The, ehem, "interesting" part is the single player. My friend's main concept for the campaign is, once again, extreme realism. So real in fact, that if you die, you can no longer access the single player campaign. Ever. It actually will lock up and you can never play it again unless you buy a new disc. His main argument for this extreme penalty is that you have to be such a badass gamer that you can actually play through it. Considering there is only one difficulty level, realistic, it will obviously be an extremely difficult game.

There you have it folks. The game is called RL (real life). So real, that if you die in the game, you can no longer play it again. Ever. Have at it, and do ask questions.

Lets see...would I play a game that just busts my balls so I have to buy it again just to complete it?

Hm...NO.

Locking up the single players after you die ONCE is not REALISTIC, its just stupid.

No, I'd need it more realistic...like if I died in the game I'd die in real life. I'm that hardcore. white_sox

by the way, 2 questions: 1. how long does the game last? 5 or 10 minutes? 2. how much does it cost? $1 or $2?ctfvyrsgurbnorn

To answer your question, the game will cost $60, same as every game. He told me the game will be roughly as long as COD4 or any other war fps I guess. One of the achievements is worth 500+ points for beating the single player.

There's on way I'd play it. If like a medic got to you within a certain time-limit, you'd survive and be able to keep fighting, but you're abilities to fight would be affected depending on where you were shot/injured and how you were shot/injured. That would make it more realistic, because even if you get shot it doesn't mean definite death.

Would there be multiplayer?

I think you won the argument with him because i don't think that anyone would but this game download the demo when its free mabye but not but it

If you talk to literally ANY game developer they will tell you that gamplay and fun takes precedent over everything else in a game. Your game could be the most realistic, have the best graphics and most amazing story in the world and NO ONE would buy it because a mentally challenged idea like that. That is the WORST idea i have ever heard for a game...EVER!

Good thing your friend doesnt make games cause he'd go from delevoping games to flipping burgers in the blink of an eye.

Harsh, but true. I'm offensive, but at least that is my honest opinion, anything less is just sugar-coating it.

If you talk to literally ANY game developer they will tell you that gamplay and fun takes precedent over everything else in a game. Your game could be the most realistic, have the best graphics and most amazing story in the world and NO ONE would buy it because a mentally challenged idea like that. That is the WORST idea i have ever heard for a game...EVER!

Good thing your friend doesnt make games cause he'd go from delevoping games to flipping burgers in the blink of an eye.

Harsh, but true. I'm offensive, but at least that is my honest opinion, anything less is just sugar-coating it.

RollingZeppelin

No worries man. Don't sugar-coat anything. That goes for all of you. I honestly couldn't believe he was actually serious myself, but I thought a good way to truly test the idea would be by running it by the gamers themselves. I guess that's what game devs probably do anyway.

yea i would realy waste $60 on the same game over and over again let me tell you about it

I don't think that would be too fun. I think that is the most stupidest idea for a game ever so no I wouldn't play it.

Not to be mean are anything, but I'm just telling the truth.

Honestly, this is one of the most ridiculousidea for a game ever. So what, eventually you will have 30+ discs scattered around your room and you still haven't beaten the first level yet, that sounds like a huge waste of money. Plus the idea of a video game, means that it is not 100% realistic. If you want it to be realistic, join the Army. Get shot, you'll most likely die! Have fun!

- Eric

Why stop there? Why not, if you die, lock up the whole system, requiring a new 360 alongside the game?

More seriously, why not borrow from Diablo 2 and just kill the character? You simply must create a new character with standard equipment a begin from scratch. And if you want full realism, don't forget to include civilian deaths.

you should copyright itkillerfist

To late i just......... oopps died guess i cant.....

A game that you spend money on and if you die you never get to play again?

WTF - NO NO NO!!!

That's one of the worst concepts I've ever heard. Tell your room-mate to take note on what actual publishers and developers are focussed on now...

Replay Value.

His concept is the antithesis of Replay Value.

Thumbs down sorry. In fact if it's any indication I quit reading the description once I read that - because truly none of the rest matters if there is something like that in the game.

That is unless you all plan on giving the game away for absolutely free - then it "might" be worth playing until you die. :P

Lets see...would I play a game that just busts my balls so I have to buy it again just to complete it?

Hm...NO.

Locking up the single players after you die ONCE is not REALISTIC, its just stupid.

Zach68486

i can see starting over

That's a really stupid idea.

No one is gonna spend $60 on a game pay it for 5 minutes die and then go out and buy it again, and again so they can finish it.

A good idea would be a realistic shooter where if you got shot a vital shot (head, chest, etc) you die. Also if you get shot in the leg you have to either be carried by an ally, make a crutch out of something, or crawl. Also you'd fight realistically scaled battles and you'd be able to give orders, and communicate with your squad.

You'd also be able to play through the entire campaign with up to 10 other people.

This was just quickly thought up, but I'd buy it.

Original poster...

as of now you have 54 votes for NO and 0 for YES. I guess that answers your question then, huh?

That doesn't mean you can't develop a good game but - don't screw the gamer playing it or it's a useless endevour.

PEACE!!!

Lol,

0 yes

63 No

why would you buy a game for 60 bucks probably die your first time playing and then have to fork over another 60 dollars for a new disc. it's nonsense and it would be lame. just like every other cheap fps. so no i wouldn't buy that game for 5 dollars

if you could select normal mode or "real life" mode in the single player options then it would be ok. but if you die in RL mode the game shouldnt lock you should just have to replay from the start again. might make a challenging alternative for a player once they get good in normal modeMacutchi

I've recommended ideas like these to my friend, but he states that the purpose of the game is utter realism. There can be no other difficulties less than that of "real life." He thinks that the "fun" would come from you being truly scared and watchful of your every move, because if you died...well, you know by now. Interestingly, he's stated that the multiplayer plays nothing like the single player because it can be played again, so it will almost be an entirely different game.

[QUOTE="Macutchi"]if you could select normal mode or "real life" mode in the single player options then it would be ok. but if you die in RL mode the game shouldnt lock you should just have to replay from the start again. might make a challenging alternative for a player once they get good in normal modeOWNaggio

I've recommended ideas like these to my friend, but he states that the purpose of the game is utter realism. There can be no other difficulties less than that of "real life." He thinks that the "fun" would come from you being truly scared and watchful of your every move, because if you died...well, you know by now. Interestingly, he's stated that the multiplayer plays nothing like the single player because it can be played again, so it will almost be an entirely different game.

[QUOTE="Macutchi"]if you could select normal mode or "real life" mode in the single player options then it would be ok. but if you die in RL mode the game shouldnt lock you should just have to replay from the start again. might make a challenging alternative for a player once they get good in normal modeOWNaggio

I've recommended ideas like these to my friend, but he states that the purpose of the game is utter realism. There can be no other difficulties less than that of "real life." He thinks that the "fun" would come from you being truly scared and watchful of your every move, because if you died...well, you know by now. Interestingly, he's stated that the multiplayer plays nothing like the single player because it can be played again, so it will almost be an entirely different game.

See someone had to go and be a goof and select YES! LOL

So now it's what 72 to 1 - yeah not very good odds. Sounds like YOU should design the game and maybe let him work on marketing since he's so hardcore. Then again the first "NO" he got - he'd probably just quit and not try anymore because he "Died" and there's no "Do-Overs" in real life. :) LOL

Great post - and great points.

Whoa. Someone actually voted yes. Who are you, and tell me why you would buy this game. I really, really, really want to know.OWNaggio

Yeah someone always got to be the joker - especially on here - I'd be willing to bet whoever did it just did it because no one else did.

:)

[QUOTE="OWNaggio"]Whoa. Someone actually voted yes. Who are you, and tell me why you would buy this game. I really, really, really want to know.DataDream

Yeah someones always got to be the joker - especially on here - I'd be willing to bet whoever did it just did it because no one else did.

:)

Good point. Forgot about those crazy kids.

Well, it's 1-88 now. Pretty intimidating results. Keep 'em coming...

[QUOTE="ctfvyrsgurbnorn"]by the way, 2 questions: 1. how long does the game last? 5 or 10 minutes? 2. how much does it cost? $1 or $2?OWNaggio

To answer your question, the game will cost $60, same as every game. He told me the game will be roughly as long as COD4 or any other war fps I guess. One of the achievements is worth 500+ points for beating the single player.

.....so your argument about the most realistic war game kinda... stops there huh? I've never heard of a war that lasts between 8 to 10 hours and can take you from one place in the world to another in a loading screen.