What's your dream game?

Half Life 3.

Like any successor to some old classic, DONE RIGHT. That manages to keep the not just the name, but also the dynamics and experience of the original. That's not done much. Wonder why?

Checkmark for a Civ VII that looks back towards Civ V, instead of building upon Civ VI.
Checkmark for a KotOR III.

Icewind Dale 3.

An Elderscroll single player game that looks back towards Morrowind, more than to anything they've done since.

Rail Road Tycoon, Rebirth. (The complete original Amiga game, just done better, bigger, improved. All the PC versions suck manure through straw.)

Latest CoD looks awesome, so I might return to that franchise, at least for that game.

Spore 2, Done right this time.

There are a couple more on my mind, but I don't think I can tell you about them.

I'd probably just mash a whole heap of some my favourite games together and close my eyes and hope for the best. It would be a weird mix of mass effect trilogy, descent freespace & mechwarrior mercenaries.
Single player focused, maybe some MP on the side.

Repost from here.

About the same as me. But I'd be throwing in BioWare (circa 2005/2012), CD Projekt Red, and Obsidian into my game creating machine and hoping for the best. 

Bit of a necro here but I was thinking about this topic the other day and wanted to get some of my ideas out there.


I am a big fan of these things in my games:

• RPGs - Tactical/Isometric titles can be very good, and I have immensely enjoyed titles like Divinity Original Sin (1 & 2) as well as the XCOM series, but if I had to pick I would say the third person action RPGs are probably my favorite. The original Mass Effect is a perfect example of that type of game; you can appreciate your character, feel immersed in the game world and also don't have to rely on invisible dice rolls to see if you succeed at shooting something. Though the depth of progression, inventory management, and player and armor customization in a game like XCOM 2 is much more my preference.

• Engaging well thought out & implemented gameplay mechanics - I want more than a simple gimmick with my gameplay, or something put in just to pad the length of my playthrough out. The gameplay loop has to be exciting but also something that has a strategic element to it as well. Flashy QTEs are only going to hold my interest for the first few times I see them, after that I get bored. I want gameplay mechanics that I don't have to think about doing and that don't become a chore; here's looking at you Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect: Andromeda for how mind-numbly boring it is trying to explore the big open maps and trying to collect resources. I thought that The Surge really hit upon a fun mechanic with how you would slice off parts of the enemies you fought to gather the materials you needed; it was quick and unobtrusive to the core gameplay loop. More mechanics of that caliber and less virtual gambling with loot rarity grinds please.

• Asymmetrical gameplay - Especially in an RPG I want the different classes, races, archetypes, etc. to look, feel (and most importantly) play differently. One of the bigger gripes I have with Destiny is with how little each of the three classes, and their subclasses, play. The difference from a Titan to a Warlock or Hunter is minuscule and aside from their supers one really doesn't get the feel of playing from one class to another. Overwatch is pretty appreciable in how it tries to make each character feel different but that asymmetry is generally limited by the competitive nature of the game and how each match only lasts 5 to 10 minutes. Even in RPGs where there is no other classes per say can still have a great degree of asymmetry to them in terms of how they differentiate themselves from other similar titles. Games like Maneater or Carrion are very good at exploring playing as something vastly different than the bog standard 'humanoid with a gun/wand' that's present in 99% of every other game. Now granted those are extreme examples but even in more moderate takes it can still be very refreshing to see. Titanfall 2 and Evolve are both great examples of this sort of asymmetrical design being utilized alongside more traditional gameplay mechanics.

• Co-operative multiplayer - The concept of playing alongside a friend or three against an array of enemy NPCs is far more enticing to me than trying to win a match in an E-Sports balanced PvP centric game. SMITE and Heroes of the Storm might have cool touches of asymmetry and co-op gameplay versus bots but both are hindered (IMO) by their need to balance for a player vs player environment. You won't get to see characters or classes in those types of game really break out of the standard mold because everything has to be balanced around that almighty competitive play; which is also why you can't have a good co-operative campaign. I can remember a title called Gladius that let you play in co-op throughout the story. Granted the other players only got to input their decisions in combat but the game let you approach the world with a wildly diverse party made up of whoever your buddies decided to pick. The Gears of War and Halo series have both been good at giving fun co-op sessions for their respective campaigns but they are very linear in their story telling. MMOs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars 2 can offer that co-operative element but with so many other players running around it tends to spoil the more personal and engaging aspect of your Gears of War 2 playthrough for example.



So for my perfect game I would like to see all of these elements present. I want an (action)RPG with deep customization, fun and engaging gameplay mechanics that allow for completely asymmetrical ways to approach playing that I can also enjoy with my close friends.

A single player, vast open world fantasy setting set in an alternate history Europe where magic manifested around the 7th century. Game has only humans, and the historical cultures of the time are the same as original timeline history. Game allows for players to choose between four major regions, and his choice of appearance or "race"depends on the region - so for example, I'd have an Eastern Med region with the starting point being either the port of Alexandria or Constantinople and you'd be able to choose between being Nubian, Egyptian, Bedouin, Aramaic, Greek, Armenian, Jewish or Persian. Geographic origin wouldn't just be a cosmetic choice, but a cultural one. In the European region, I'd have starting points in Rome and Cologne, and you'd be able to choose from Frankish, Danes and Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, and the major tribes of 7th century Western Russia. From those places, you'd be able to travel either to your home region, or start making a name for yourself in the starting region. You'd get bonuses and penalties in interactions depending on where you from vs if the area you're travelling to is favorable to people like you or you're simply a rare sight. Like a Greek in a Nubian village unaccostumed to merchant travellers, or vice versa.

Game would center around the introduction of magic into the world having manifested widely into the world only twenty years prior. Already, some regions are either adopting it, magic users becoming part of a new elite, or mages are oppressed. Magic is powerful, but with enough people and the right weapons, you can kill a magic user. The plot follows a young traveller whose magic manifested in his/her childhood, was thrown out of their home in their teens (either because of parents beliefs, or simply because they found you too dangerous), and is now looking for magical tutelage from those mages who supposedly had magic before it became widely available to others. You navigate a political/ideological battle between various shades of beliefs that "All magic is an abomination", "magic should be leashed and tightly controlled, but used" and "those with magic should rule".

You build up your characters magical arsenal by applying it in both battle and practical magic. Practical magic being helping to enchant/alter tools, help raise a house torn down by in a storm, mend the wounds of a little child's puppy, that sort of thing. You do jobs for influential people for "prestige", while you can do jobs for commoners which gives you "reknown" which increases the publics trust in magic. As you gain both reknown and prestige, you can ingratiate yourself with either nobles as a mage advisor, or plot together with mage conspirators to take charge in a coup - or some combination of both. As you gain political power, you can advise for calling for war on other people.

There'd be companions, both magic and non-magic users, and you'd also have the possibility to lead men in war - but it wouldn't be like Mount and Blade where you walking the map with an army. You only have an army if you either join a revolt against a ruler, or if you are sent to battle by your ruler- or if you *are* the ruler.

It would be possible, with significant penalties in NPC approval, to travel outside of your region once you've reached an appropriate level of either reknown or wealth. Empire building also comes with a vast increase in rebellions, assassination attempts, powerful mages constantly challenging you personally, and neighbouring kingdoms allying into huge armies that can bring you down.

The most important aspect of the game would focus on the character jostling with the question of whether being powerful means you have a right to wield power over others, of the question of how social classes emerge, generally whether - as Dragon Age puts it - "magic should serve man or rule over it". It should focus on whether the powerful, the elite, become their own societies ruling other societies (the non-magic common people) or whether an elite is part of a wider society - and what being or becoming part of that does to a person. For that purpose, the character should always have a non-noble background, and game should focus on how not just nobles and the powerful see magic and power, but also on how power (magical or otherwise) alienates you. At the same time, it should show how people at the time, generally did not rebel against the power structures, that they accepted the social hierachies.

Presentation would therefore also be a game mechanic in the game that would influence how people see. At character creation, your character gets an "attractive" score for women (calculated using data based on each ethnic groups' men's rating from real Nubians for Nubian characters, Egyptians for Egyptian, Greek for Greek, etc.) And yes, it did say there'd be an attractiveness score for women. There'd be a "masculinity" score for the male character, based on how strong they look and how masculine their features are - not their attractiveness, and it would again only be men from the real ethnic groups doing the rating. So, an attractive vs. say, "matronly" appearance for women, and "masculine" vs, say, "bookish" appearance for men. And yes, that's unfair, but that's how it is meant to be. How a character dresses, the status of their clothes vs their real social status (some societies would physically punish you for wearing clothes beyond your station), would all be an important factor. When you're either king or queen or the top royal advisor, people will have learned not to have underestimated you because of your appearance. Not that they'd not resent you, and paint you as the devil for it.

And yeah, that's alot to bring into one game.

What would be absolutely forbidden in my ideal game would be pay to win features. You buy the game once and it will cost alot, but that's it. Also, there'd be no option of creating, say, a Kushitic East African looking character who is supposedly Frankish, or a supposedly Japanese character who looks Nordic. That particular interpretation of "diversity" would be absolutely forbidden in any game of mine. My game should feel real, and respectful of real differences and real history, not pretend that everywhere in the world at all points in time were like modern day New York city and that diversity is just about skin color or "race". And gender issues would be horribly discriminatory by design, too, as I've outlined. Imo, fantasy shouldn't mean that people 1300 years ago, suddenly wield modern day liberal or progressive views on class or gender - or illiberal and regressive views on "race", for that matter. As little anachronism as possible.

Something between Dragon Age II (a city changing over several years, characters), Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire (factions, characters, classes, character customization, dialogues) and Dark Souls (combat, controls, loot).
Or just Pillars of Eternity III.

A Bioware RPG set in the 21st century, and the final boss is the president of the United States.

Instead of travelling by car or plane, you inexplicably travel across the country by foot still, just like in Dragon Age, and you camp in the cornfields, or along highways, Origins-style.

Every teammember is as opinionated on modern politics as the characters in Dragon Age 2.

Star citizen, if it was done, done well, and not an insane ripoff.

A Pokémon game with rpg elements...what? It'd be fun

I mean, imagine a game like Dragon Age...but in a pokémon setting, which would get updated for free when new generations or pokémon are released
You start out as a young kid with their first starter (that you can pick the gender of and from any generation)
Then you journey around the pokémon world to get experience and decide what type of trainer you want to be
wanna join an organization like Team Rocket? Go ahead! Want to be a breeder or coordinator, you do you!

I imagine it'd be a sandbox like rpg with each island/country being their own contained area
and also contain a drop in online function to allow you to play together with friends

I don't have an idea for a story-line though

There's this dormant JRPG series: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Arms

And this upcoming ARPG: