Game idea

Imagine a historical FPS game, one which allows the player to explore all the what-ifs of history.  As the British, one might be able to drive tanks to Arhnem, secure the bridges, and end the war by Christmas, rather than what the history tell us. As the Germans, one might be able to beat the British at El Alamien and drive on to Alexandria. This is just a WWII example. It could work for anything!

This would work like a flow chart. If one beat mission A then one goes on to mission B, but if one doesn't beat mission A then one goes to mission C.Then, if one failed mission B you could go back to mission A, but then if one win, one would go to mission D. Finally, if one succeeded in mission C , then one might go back to mission A, but if one failed one would go on to mission E. For example, mission A is to take a town. If the player succeeds, then thier next mission, mission B, would be to defend the town they captured. If they beat that mission, they would go on to mission D, to capture a bridge, but if they failed mission B, then they would go back to mission A, and they would have to retake the town. If they lost then they would go on to mission C, which would be to defend the spot from which they launched the attack on the town. If they lost then they would go on to mission E, to recapture the terrain they just lost, but if they succeeded then they would go back to mission A, to take a town. One would not always go back to mission A after beating/failing missions C/B. Using that, after beating/failing missions C/B one could go on to completely different missions. Such as after beating mission C one might attack a supply dump instead, or after failing mission B one might clear out a forest near the village. This would eliminate going back and forth between missions. If something was critical to the war effort, then instead of the player trying to take it over and over again, after you try to take the town once or twice and failed then you would get a message that read: Your company has sustained high causalities and is being pulled from the front lines and will return once reinforced. The computer would decide if the town was taken or not and you would just pick up from that. As a way to prevent having to retake the town if town was not taken in by the computer, your missions would be elsewhere with expected lighter resistance as a way to battle harden your new recruits.

While playing the player is allowed only a certain amount of deaths to complete the mission. The number of deaths would vary upon difficulty. They go as follows:

Easy-15 deaths

Medium-10 deaths

Hard-5 deaths

Authentic-1 or 2 deaths

The squad will also recieve rewards if one completes a certain number of missions in a row. The rewards might be a machine gun team, a mortar team, or a artillery/airplane spotter.In contrast, if a player loses to many missions in a row, they will lose thier rewards, should they have any.

Finally, the enemy would never be in the same place twice, and this means that the player must not only develop a strategy while in combat, but formulate it in a certain amount of time(due to the deaths, and such immenince). Having a completely interactive enviorment would help as such: Say one must continually attack a town (for whatever reason). The first attack would not be the same as the second because the enviorment would have been changed by previous missions and attacks, as well as unseen NPC actions. Perhaps that machine gun position in the bell tower is gone because the player blew it up last time around. The completly interactive enviorment would included the ability to explore the local area to a great extent, intereacting with anything, from the enemy machine guns to the farmer's dinner plates.

These features create a game that feels gritty, realistic, and involving. Done correctly, these features give the game a much greater replay value than linear games.

Hmm... that sounds like a good idea, especially given the present staleness of the WWII fps genre. And by the way, hi everyone! (this is my first post here).Funkyhamster

Glad to have you aboard.

Already sent it to Infinity Ward and whoever else made FPS's that were rated good by GS. 

Still no answers yet.

It's because of Jack Thompson, he gets stupid soccer moms and old people to believe his stories so that he can sue Rockstar for all of their money.  All of this happened becauseof two incidences where people got shot.  And I have to say this"when you have a game that sells millions of copies, you're bound to get crazy people play them.  Now look at it this way, tons of people go to visit Niagara Falls all of the time, and we have some going down it in barrels.  Does that mean that we should plug up the falls so that people can't even see it anymore."  I would love to see that Thompson's face at that one.  Roughly one in 28,000 people is completely crazy, so in that case I'd say that the odds should actually be stacked against you, Mr. Thompson.  Just because a few crazy people get behind the wheel of this game, doesn't mean punishing the rest of us.  And oh, that doesn't support your argument that young teens are getting there hands on these games without the the seller asking for parental permission.  I've never gone to a store where I  have not only had to ask for my parents acknowledgement, but had to be criticized in addition. Even though I live in an extremely liberal area, and I'm almost 17.  All that you are doing, Mr. Thompson, is praying on the weak-minded, elderly, and overprotective so that you can make some extra money.