Another One for the Idea Bucket

Sorry about this, entirely new topic in an entirely new post. Still on the topic of Spore, I was thinking into various engines and games that let you make games. Things like RPG Maker. With the recent improvements in technology, I think it’d be very possible to create the same general concept for an RTS Maker. Spore creates animation for anything you can make. So why not apply this same idea to an RTS engine?

So why do this? It’s simple: you’d rake in plenty of cash. So Average Joe goes out to buy an RTS game. But what should he buy? Command and Conquer 3? Company of Heroes? There are a myriad of titles avalible, but Joe only has enough money for one because, like most Americans, he works at a toothpaste factory screwing on tops. Why not just buy one game that allows him to create millions?

So here’s the basic idea: you can make ANYTHING at all into an RTS. Want a sci-fi humans vs. aliens game? Make it. Want a Medieval chivalric war? Make it. Want to play as Rocky Balboa in the ring? Make it. The game should be epic. You’re provided with everything you need: building blocks for units, tanks, buildings, and even debris. All of this organized into a nifty little project file. Users can publish (but not sell) their games with the game, (possible) online play, and possibly a map editor (or not if you don’t want Rocky Balboa fighting in Iraq… lemme write that down.) This way, players can make professional games with no scripting experience.

Okay, so you’re selling a DIY game to some kid in his basement. It’s single payment, so where’s all this money come from? Let’s say this kid makes the next Starcraft. Hire him. Put him on as a project lead and let him build his own actual RTS. Not looking so dull now, right? And if that’s not enough, think of how popular you’ll be after someone uses your software to release Rocky in Iraq 2. It’s like free advertisement.

Here’s what you’ll need:

Project Based

I don’t want to have to rebuild my game for every map in the campaign. The whole thing should be in one project. Players should be able to just put all their crap in one file, then build everything off that one file. It keeps everything relatively organized.

Building/Unit Building Blocks

I don’t want to be given four or five models to use in my game, I want something like Spore (see, I was going somewhere with that.) I want to be able to click and drag blocks onto a foundation and make a command center. Let’s break this down further:

Building Editor

Okay, so you can make any building you want. First you should be able to determine its size in tiles. There have to be an assortment of primitives to use. A rectangle for your normal crap, spheres for domes, triangles for… uh… stuff, and various crap like sattalite dishes. All of this has to be freeformable. Now we need more stuff: a door that can open to let units inside (garrisons) or deposit your trained units, windows that units can fire out of (also garrisons,) and the ability to break the building’s destruction down into as many parts as you want.

Now that we have geometry done, let’s move onto statistics. Players should be able to determine some simple things, like health and function, but also more complex things, like if it nukes part of the map when it blows up. Players can also determine if it’s garrisonable, and how many units it can store.

Unit Editor

I want Godzilla to fight against legions of storm troopers! That should be buildable. Players need to be able to determine everything about units, like with buildings, but more like Spore’s build a creature. You are given a simple person that you can mishmosh in any way. Move his arms around, make his head as big as a skyscraper, you get the idea. Now he needs things like guns. Oh! And a backpack. Let’s put on a cape for good measure. And let’s give him a peg leg for the heck of it. Now he needs clothes. Camo pants and a pink shirt. And a ninja mask to balance the peg leg.

If I can’t do that, then this isn’t an RTS maker. I want to be able to make anything that pops into my head. I want a tank with a sword! I want a midget that explodes! Anything I can think of should be buildable.

Map Editor

Let’s start putting my things in a map. I need to be able to determine what terrain I can add around the map. I also want to be able to determine the debris scattered about. Now I need some water and some UFOs. Finally, let’s have the UFOs deliver some witty dialogue. That’s all there should be.

Publish

Click a button and an installer is built for your program, complete with every unit, skin, map, and random hoo-hah you made. Just put it on the internet and tell everyone that you made Rocky in Iraq 2. You’ll be the next internet sensation, or a failure. Possibly the latter.

And that’s all I want to have to do. One, two, three done.

PR: Nothing Can Go Wrong

Most game developers disagree with the adage “less is more,” an adage that I rarely use too. After all, more means bigger explosions, better story, and neater graphics. There’s no problem with that. The problem is directly related to public relations. Advertisements and magazine features seem to be a huge thing for game developers these days. Of course everyone wants to know about Red Alert 3, and how it’s already in development. It’s just that after reading every tiny piece of information, people will want to know even more. If the developer continues to publish information, you won’t even need the game. Just make a flip book out of the screenshots and play some rave music.

Developers seem to, in all occasions, go over the edge with PR. They’ll tell us the whole god damned story before we even pick up a controller, or explain how to defeat this one boss before we can buy a copy of the game. For a lot of people, this can be a problem (for the rest of you, and you know who you are, feel free to shout out the ending on the release date.) I enjoy reading about games coming out in a few months, but when they publish article after article on games scheduled to be released in 2010, I just can’t handle it.

For example, last night I tried to read through a Spore article in April’s Games for Windows magazine. Only a few paragraphs in, I just couldn’t keep reading. I was bored with the article. They just kept restating what they’d already said before. It seems like Spore doesn’t have any features any more. It’s just a game you buy that simply says, “U R GAWD LOL!!!” The same goes for Left 4 Dead. I’m not interested any more. When I first saw it, I was on the edge of my seat reading. Now it’s just boring. It’s because we’re being spoiled with too much information. Valve and (what I remember as Maxis) EA could spend less time interviewing and more time releasing that game.

Let’s look deeper into this problem. Left 4 Dead sounds insanely fun, and it may very well be! It just keeps telling us over and over that it’s a cooperative game with zombies. I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with the fact that you can point out flaws in the features. For example, griefing. Humans need to get inside a building. Then one player stops in the doorway and decides to take a nap while standing up. Now the remaining three (another problem: low player cap) are stuck outside battling hordes of zombies and eventually die.

I don’t want that in a game I buy. I’d like a game that doesn’t have that. But life is life and that will exist forever, it’s just that we don’t notice that in the articles we read until we sit down and think about it. I’m not saying that Spore or L4D are bad games, they’ll probably both win Game of the Year after their release. I’ll pay good money for both. All it is is that they shouldn’t be publishing an article every day on how there’s a slighter hint of red in the player models. Sooner or later, another developer will read the magazine and find out how to add that hint of red to HIS player models.

Let’s use an example: developer 1 tells everyone that he can change the color of penises with the machine he is inventing. He keeps talking to everyone about it, but never finishes inventing it. Developer 2 builds a machine faster that can only turn cocks red and blue, but he gets paid more money sooner because it’s similar enough. Now developer 1 releases his machine, and nobody wants to buy it becase developer 2 already got their cash.

Lair, for example, is another reason where large amounts of PR can backfire. Whatever we saw from Lair kicked ass. Ripping rhinos’ heads off? FUCK YEAH! Then we get some mediocre game with crappy controls and decent graphics. Lair had a ton of advertisement, but they didn’t show us anything longer than a thirty second run through. They made it seem awesome. I was so disappointed with Lair, that I returned my copy to the store only four days after I bought it.

Now then, let’s look at something else: Little Big Planet has barely any advertisement. It’s the kind of thing you hear about from a hobo who types in random Youtube search terms. It looks awesome! I have to scour the internet for any information about it, but whatever I hear is great! I’m not saying that all developers should do this. After all, Little Big Planet isn’t even mentioned in GFW’s upcoming games list. There’s a magic number somewhere.

Let’s take a look a Call of Duty 4. We didn’t really hear much about it until mid-2007. That was 6 months of advertisement, and it got its message across. They showed what they had before any developer could act, and they showed enough to keep up content. And they weren’t pulling our leg either. Every article was something new. When it was released, CoD4 became a huge sensation. Even critical Yahtzee Croshaw enjoyed it.

So what’s this magic number? Only reveal information when you have enough work done to show something new each time and reveal information quickly. Spore started being unveiled years ago and kept becoming delayed. L4D was more recent, but still slow. Little Big Planet has too little information to share. And Lair… sucked. I’d say, about four months before release (make sure there’s no delays,) with a modest article every month.