Journalist asks indies what they'd do if tasked with making the next CoD, Indies prove they're artsy - Polidicks

An alternate history WW2 Call of Duty, the war starts 3 years later. You'd get to play with all the cool weapons made at the end of the war and the story wouldn't be as predictable.

[QUOTE=Lord Xenoyia;44779497]We should just make the next CoD secretly control drones in afghanistan while people play, so when they shoot a terrorist in the game they die irl.[/QUOTE] Call of Duty's servers shut down on the same day that terrorism is declared over.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;44779085][quote]Call of Duty: War Photographer. Players step into the shoes of veteran conflict documentarian Angela Espinoza, entering hot zones armed only with a mechanical film camera. Adjust the F-stop on the fly and swap lenses with the analog triggers and d-pad. Develop photos after each battle, selling them to player-run galleries and news agencies.[/quote] This actually sounds weirdly entertaining[/QUOTE] Instantly thought of Frank West at first.

if i could invent the new cod: fart cops

[QUOTE=Wii60;44779144]i wonder why there hasn't been a proper civillian warfare game yet. would like to play a stealth game where your trying to leave the city, it's open world randomized and stuff.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fv-iwk9DWc[/url] This is a game about that.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;44779050]That's pretty sadistic...[/QUOTE] I don't know, sounds really interesting

I'd make a game where war has evolved to the point where all of the soldiers are robots, and a single person is in charge of each army. It would be a lot like battlefront except you can switch between any soldier on the battlefield at any time and you can switch their AI to defensive, aggressive, medic, etc so when you aren't controlling them they perform those actions. You can also assign them group numbers(or symbols) and they will try to stay together with their group. Call of Duty: Army of One

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44781101]I'd make a game where war has evolved to the point where all of the soldiers are robots, and a single person is in charge of each army. It would be a lot like battlefront except you can switch between any soldier on the battlefield at any time and you can switch their AI to defensive, aggressive, medic, etc so when you aren't controlling them they perform those actions. You can also assign them group numbers(or symbols) and they will try to stay together with their group. Call of Duty: Army of One[/QUOTE] Cortex Command?

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44781184]Cortex Command?[/QUOTE] I haven't played a lot of video games (from this millennium) :v: I'll check it out. If it wasn't made before 2009 my computer probably won't run it tho

Call of Duty: Cold War. Your missions consist of you waking up in the morning and viewing the frozen nothingness that is the Northwest Territory of Canada. That is followed by you grabbing wood for your fire, walking back inside and sitting at a long distance radio for hours translating Russian telegraphs and radio signals. occasionally, planes will arrive with food and other supplies. The story heats up when one of your fellow radio workers develops a bad case of frostbite and must be sent back to the states to be treated. The game will feature lots of close-quarter transcribing and caribou. Note: Game not playable if you are not fluent in Russian, however a subtitles DLC will be available six months after release.

[QUOTE=supersnail11;44779055]I'd play it.[/QUOTE] sounds like my experience in fallout new vegas

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44779053]Oh god these are comically awful ideas. Bonus points to the guy who said he'd basically make the game into a strawman political take-that against UKIP. [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] Yeah, that one up there.[/QUOTE] One of them seems quite good actually. As a survival game it would be interesting, doubt it would be a AAA seller though. [quote]I'd do a first person war game from the perspective of a civilian, swept up in events, who doesn't pick up a gun. Protecting your family, avoiding forces on both sides. It'd be an interesting and under-represented perspective on a conflict.[/quote] [editline]11th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44780175]I feel like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saboteur"]The Saboteur[/URL] falls within striking distance of your idea. You play as a civilian in open world Nazi France, and you go around ambushing and sabotaging German forces. A fair bit of stealth can be employed to these ends.[/QUOTE] I had a game years ago, that I didn't really understand or get into where you start as a civilian in some draconian place and you are able to create a revolution and stuff from the ground up. I wish I could remember the name of it as I am sure I would enjoy it now.

[QUOTE=Jsm;44782551]One of them seems quite good actually. As a survival game it would be interesting, doubt it would be a AAA seller though.[/QUOTE] Isn't that civilian game happening though? I remember seeing a trailer for it on here a while back. [video=youtube_share;pH_tYB_Ntlg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH_tYB_Ntlg[/video]

[QUOTE=GameDev;44779245]i still want this [video=youtube;h7mBp9jSlQA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7mBp9jSlQA[/video][/QUOTE] wasnt this payday somehow [QUOTE=Wii60;44779144]i wonder why there hasn't been a proper civillian warfare game yet. would like to play a stealth game where your trying to leave the city, it's open world randomized and stuff.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fv-iwk9DWc[/media] [editline]v[/editline] FUCKING HELL NINJA PIZZASHIT

[QUOTE=autodesknoob;44782689]wasnt this payday somehow -snip- [editline]v[/editline] FUCKING HELL NINJA PIZZASHIT[/QUOTE] Yeah third time this has been posted :V

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44782731]Yeah third time this has been posted :V[/QUOTE] uhm no?

I think I'd like to see a CoD where America is the antagonist, and you're playing as the nation they've invaded, trying to fight them off.

[url]http://www.blog.radiator.debacle.us/2011/11/on-first-person-military-manshooter-and.html[/url] [quote]The main message, coming from a war photographer and national security journalist, was a decidedly ethical message: Today, war is invisible and nearly impossible to photograph. And that is a dangerous thing. So if you ever see a photo of a guy aiming a rifle, remind yourself -- that's not war. Instead, they argued that war is an agonizingly slow, decade-long game of chess. War is the US spending billions to magically airdrop and sustain a city of 45,000 people in the middle of Nowhere, Afghanistan. War is a guard tower built next to a tennis court. War doesn't take place on a battlefield, but a "Battlespace" that encompasses every facet of modern life. War is an unmanned drone with 96 cameras, sending back footage for 200 intelligence analysts to dissect before going home to eat pancakes. War is a cheap internet router that may or may not have fed data to Chinese intelligence agencies. Now, by "war is invisible," the war photographer meant visually uninteresting and utterly unsexy, as the new Battlefield sequel will probably not have a router and a sewage infrastructure on the cover. What about the unheroic water tanks, unsung container yards, and unknown burn pits of military bases? The fuel, ammo, water, food, and how to move it and where to put it? Kandahar is one of the busiest airports in the world. Must the video game industry show and simulate war as it really is? (paperwork, logistics, uncertainty, sitting at a desk, guilt) If it wants to be ethical, I argue yes. The average player might recognize the glaring differences between these virtual depictions of war and real-life: an eerie lack of civilians in what's supposed to be a city, free-reign to fire your weapon without authorization, and a superhuman ability to sprint up stairs. But the long con of these first person military manshooters is to tell you so many small unbelievable lies so you'll swallow the big ones: that it is possible to optimize a path to victory, that victory in war is even possible, that war involves soldiers and personal agency, and that war is fundamentally fair and just in the context of a balanced game system. (None of those things are true in Afghanistan.) By that measure, no AAA FPS currently depicts "modern warfare." The war they present, of roughly symmetrical forces meeting each other on battlefields in trenched combat, is an antique of World War II and the Korean War. The danger is not someone going out to shoot a school or impulsively join the army; the danger is that these games are affecting how we think of war in a decidedly misguided way, and that pattern of thought affects popular support of real-life wars that actually kill people.[/quote] Before you call all of the indie ideas "artsy shit" please think about this.

[QUOTE] I’d turn it into a point and click adventure.[/QUOTE] I know it's a joke but to loosely quote Yahtzee what other puzzle would there be besides Use Gun on Man?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44782797]I think I'd like to see a CoD where America is the antagonist, and you're playing as the nation they've invaded, trying to fight them off.[/QUOTE] call of duty: letters from vietnam jima

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;44779051]I dunno, I found this one pretty funny.[/QUOTE] Wait, so basically "V For Vendetta", but instead of having a singular "martyr" character, the situation explodes into an all-out civil war? That actually sounds pretty sweet. The end-game goal could be to assassinate High Chancellor Adam Sutler, AKA this motherfucker: [img]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7234/1193/1600/v8.jpg[/img]

Did someone photoshop all the lines out of his suit because I seem to recall him being a little less absorbed by his flag

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44782819][url]http://www.blog.radiator.debacle.us/2011/11/on-first-person-military-manshooter-and.html[/url] Before you call all of the indie ideas "artsy shit" please think about this.[/QUOTE] What is he even trying to get at? That there's mountains of "dry" logistics behind a military operation? That's been the case for centuries. It's nothing new. I'm sure he's trying to spin this into some sort of anti-military-industrial-complex schlock but the sheer absurdity of his selective reasoning is outstanding. Are all Second World War shooters not portraying warfare [I]correctly[/I] because you're not a US supply clerk on the beachheads directing the flow of POL stock on D-Day+7? Trying to argue that that's all warfare encompasses is fucking daft when I can sit here all day and post videos up and down of men fighting and dying in personal combat. Moreover, trying to imply that unconventional and asymmetrical warfare has somehow completely replaced conventional warfare is appallingly ignorant and short-sighted. Regarding his final point, it's really pretentious and sad to assume that the popular FPS audience is so unable to disconnect fantasy from reality that those dirty unwashed bellicose hordes might usher in a new and terrible age of war upon the world. Again, the... 'issues' he brings up are nothing new, and popular media in any case whatsoever is more likely to portray the interesting side of things over the monotonous and un-noteworthy.

[QUOTE=autodesknoob;44782789]uhm no?[/QUOTE] I posted it and then Snooky posted it and then you posted it.

I think what I'd do for Call of Duty is make the singleplayer story depressing, like war is in real life, you have to make an important choice between duty and family, and picking either is not a "victory". For multiplayer I would want to have Los Angeles made in some pretty good detail, city wide, semi destructible. Every time you log on to play the MP, you pick a side, and you fight a war for the city over a lot of different divisions of the map. The map would be living much like how Chomehounds did it's multiplayer, a war for a region. Persistent environment destruction that lasts between matches. Have a regular(maybe monthly) reset of the game world back to default. It'd be interesting, the MP would feel like it's really leaving a mark on the world it's taking place in.

Clearly a text-based first person shooter is the only way to go.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44782819][url]http://www.blog.radiator.debacle.us/2011/11/on-first-person-military-manshooter-and.html[/url] Before you call all of the indie ideas "artsy shit" please think about this.[/QUOTE] ...? [quote]In a true war story, if there's a moral at all, it's like the thread that makes the cloth. You can't tease it out. You can't extract the meaning without unraveling the deeper meaning. And in the end, really, there's nothing much to say about a true war story, except maybe "Oh." True war stories do not generalize. They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis. For example: War is hell. As a moral declaration the old truism seems perfectly true, and yet because it abstracts, because it generalizes, I can't believe it with my stomach. Nothing turns inside. It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe. This one does it for me. I've told it before - many times, many versions - but here's what actually happened. We crossed that river and marched west into the mountains. On the third day, my friend Curt Lemon stepped on a boobytrapped artillery round. He was playing catch with Rat Kiley, laughing, and then he was dead. The trees were thick; it took nearly an hour to cut an LZ for the dustoff. Later, higher in the mountains, we came across a baby VC water buffalo. What it was doing there I don't know - no farms, no paddies - but we chased it down and, got a rope around it and led it along to a deserted village where we set up for the night. After supper Rat Kiley went over and stroked its nose. He opened up a can of C rations, pork and beans, but the baby buffalo wasn't interested. Rat shrugged. He stepped back and shot it through the right front knee. The animal did not make a sound. It went down hard, then got up again, and Rat took careful aim and shot off an ear. He shot it in the hindquarters and in the little hump at its back. He shot it twice in the flanks. It wasn't to kill; it was to hurt. He put the rifle muzzle up against the mouth and shot the mouth away. Nobody said much. The whole platoon stood there watching, feeling all kinds of things, but there wasn't a great deal of pity for the baby water buffalo. Curt Lemon was dead. Rat Kiley had lost his best friend in the world. Later in the week Rat would write a long personal letter to the guy's sister, who would not write back, but for now, it was simply a question of pain. He shot off the tail. He shot away -chunks of meat below the ribs. All around us there was the smell of smoke and filth and greenery, and the evening was humid and very hot. Rat went to automatic. He shot randomly, almost casually, quick little spurts in the belly. Then he reloaded, squatted down, and shot it in the left front knee. Again the animal fell hard and tried to get up, but this time it couldn't quite make it. It wobbled and went down sideways. Rat shot it in the nose. He bent forward and whispered something, as if talking to a pet, then he shot it in the throat. All the while the baby water buffalo was silent, or almost silent, just a little bubbling sound where the nose had been. It lay very still. Nothing moved except the eyes, which were enormous, the pupils shiny black and dumb. Rat Kiley was crying. He tried to say something, but them cradled his rifle and went off by himself. The rest of us stood in a ragged circle around the baby buffalo. For a long time no one spoke. We had witnessed some- thing essential, something brand-new and profound, a piece of the world so startling there was not yet a word for it. Somebody kicked the baby buffalo. It was still alive, though just barely, just in the eyes. "Amazing," Dave Jensen said. "My whole life, I never seen anything like it." [...] "Never?" "Not hardly. Not once." Kiowa and Mitchell Sanders picked up the baby buffalo. They hauled it across the open square, hoisted it up, and dumped it in the village well. Afterward, we sat waiting for Rat to get himself together. "Amazing," Dave Jensen kept saying. "A new wrinkle. I never seen it before." Mitchell Sanders took out his yo-yo. "Well, that's Nam,' he said. "Garden of Evil. Over here, man, every sin's ret fresh and original." How do you generalize? War is hell, but that's not the half of it, because war is mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead. The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can't help but gape at the awful majesty of combat. You stare out at tracer rounds unwinding through the dark like brilliant red ribbons. You crouch in ambush as a cool, impassive moon rises over the nighttime paddies. You admire the fluid symmetries of troops on the move, the great sheets of metal-fire streaming down from a gunship, the illumination rounds, the white phosphorus, the purply orange glow of napalm, the rocket's red glare. It's not pretty, exactly. It's astonishing. It fills the eye. It commands you. You hate it, yes, but your eyes do not. Like a killer forest fire, like cancer under a microscope, any battle or bombing raid or artillery barrage has the aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference - a powerful, implacable beauty - and a true war story will tell the truth about this, though the truth is ugly. To generalize about war is like generalizing about peace. Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true. Though it's odd, you're never more alive than when you're almost dead. You recognize what's valuable. Freshly, as if for the first time, you love what's best in yourself and in the world, all that might be lost. At the hour of dusk you sit at your foxhole and look out on a wide river turning pinkish red, and at the mountains beyond, and although in the morning you must cross the river and go into the mountains and do terrible things and maybe die, even so, you find yourself studying the fine colors on the river, you feel wonder and awe at the setting of the sun, and you are filled with a hard, aching love for how the world could be and always should be, but now is not. Mitchell Sanders was right. For the common soldier, at least, war has the feel - the spiritual texture - of a great ghostly fog, thick and permanent. There is no clarity. Everything swirls. The old rules are no longer binding, the old truths no longer true. Right spills over into wrong. Order blends into chaos, hate into love, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery. The vapors suck you in. You can't tell where you are, or why you're there, and the only certainty is absolute ambiguity. In war you lose your sense of the definite, hence your sense of truth itself, and therefore it's safe to say that in a true war story nothing is absolutely true. Often in a true war story there is not even a point, or else the point doesn't hit you until, say, twenty years later, in your sleep, and you wake up and shake your wife and start telling the story to her, except when you get to the end you've forgotten the point again. And then for a long time you lie there watching the story happen in your head. You listen to your wife's breathing. The war's over. You close your eyes. You smile and think, Christ, what's the point?[/quote] [url=http://cds.library.brown.edu/projects/WritingVietnam/readings/tob_true_war.html]Excert from "The Things They Carried"[/url] War is love, war is hate. I'd probably just remake the first Vietcong games or make a game based on [I]Tigers in the Mud[/I] or [I]Death Traps[/I]. Both books gave a very bleak picture of how things were in the 2nd World War for American and German tankers, and indulges less about the, "OMG WAR SO CRUEL ; - ; " and points about the stupidity regarding tactics and planning on both sides of the war, and how brave men were for simply being willing to get into a tank, knowing how bad their odds were of coming home.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44782797]I think I'd like to see a CoD where America is the antagonist, and you're playing as the nation they've invaded, trying to fight them off.[/QUOTE] I don't think fighting for Sadam Hussein, the Viet Cong or the Taliban are exactly something you can say would make you a good guy.

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44783747]I don't think fighting for Sadam Hussein, the Viet Cong or the Taliban are exactly something you can say would make you a good guy.[/QUOTE] Everyone is the good guy from their own perspective.

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44783747]I don't think fighting for Sadam Hussein, the Viet Cong or the Taliban are exactly something you can say would make you a good guy.[/QUOTE] no one said anything about being the good guy