Battle Royale

[Jast]

Anyone seen the movie battle royale? The premise is that a class of students are kidnapped and taken to an abandoned island, where they must play a game. They are each given weapons and must kill each other until one remains, or no one lives. It gave me an idea for a rpg.

 

Same premise for the game. You start off with about 100 other people, npcs, and must play this game. At the beginning you choose what clique or group of friends you belonged to, setting starting relations. You also choose your basic skills, like weapons, close combat, survival, etc. Do the same for attributes. At the beginning, you're given random equipment, for example, you might get a gun one play through, or like in the movie, just some binoculars. Then the game starts. You're released into the wilds in groups, or one by one, and from there on the game is open ended. You have three days to eliminate at least 90 of the other competitors, or to turn on the game masters as I call them and find a way off the island. It all takes place in real time, no accellerated junk, so you have 72 real time hours.

 

Since there are only main 100 npcs, not counting the bad guys running the game, each npc is unique. They each react differently. So might be scared, and try to hide out, others might form groups with others in their clique, some might go solo etc. Basically, each one has a unique personality. Factions are basically group of friends who band together. Some factions will be small, like about 3 or 4 people, others large, with about 10. Each faction has goals, be it eliminating another faction, finding someone, turning on their captors, etc. You can choose to help the factions or start your own, gathering up a few npcs who are loyal to you.

 

The other npcs will give out dynamic sidequests as the game goes on that you can complete. They may ask you to eliminate someone or gather something. There won't really be quests rewards, but helping the factions or npcs on the island will make them friendlier to you, and if you get friendly enough, they'll eventually help you out and follow you around. Of course, some npcs and factions will be hostile from the start, but there may be ways to lower their hostility. Also, if the player decides not to take the missions, another npc might complete it, raising their faction or npc standing.

 

There would be a way to manage npcs who follow you, like giving them formation commands or sending them out on missions. Whether they fail those missions or not is based on their skill. Other factions will be doing the same thing. Basically, the game world will move without your input. If you sit there for hours staring at a wall some other factions might gather enough people and push against the game masters, thus ending the game, or they might wipe out everyone else on the island. The player is just another joe trying to survive, not the chosen one or anything like that.

 

That's about all I can type for now. I'd like to know what others think about this idea.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Jast

[Tale]

Sounds more fitting for an FPS than an RPG. The concept lacks in story and focuses on combat. Ultimately, it's too bare an idea for me to have a particularly good opinion.

 

Make it a multiplayer FPS with traps, you might have something.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Tale

[Jast]

Yeah, it is pretty bare bones, and thinking more about it, it probaly would be more of a FPS along Deus Ex lines. There can be a main story in the backround but with people dying left and right there might not be a main quest line.

[Volourn]

"Sounds more fitting for an FPS than an RPG. The concept lacks in story and focuses on combat. Ultimately,"

 

I completely, and utterly disagree.

 

I think a scenario like Battle Royale (though I haven't seen it; but I'v seen certain movies that had the basic premise) would make for a great role-playing game. I think Jast bended to your will way too easy.

 

His (or her)'s idea for a BR type RPG is fantastic.

 

Let's first squash your silly idea about what RPGs are.

 

 

A. You say this would lack a story. That's bullocks. The story here is not epic heroic quest; but one of survival. A RPG doesn't need a super duper tight story to be ARPG; just a solid foundation for role-playing your character.

 

This game has it in spades.

 

B. Focus on combat. Not really sorry. First off, the idea that hints at that a RPG can only be a good RPG if there is no or very little combat. This is bogus. The amount of combat is irrlevevant in determining if a game is a RPG.

 

 

The only that matters to a RPG is role-playing - choosing how your character is gonna act in the different situations they are in. In this proposed game, the PC will be able to decide if they'll 'play the game' as ordered and start killing the others. Or they could try to team up and get off the island and get back at their captors. or even eventually making a plea to those who put them in the situation in the first palce. Plenty of oppurtunity to join up with others, become a lone wolf, hide out, etc., etc.

 

Add that to a solid stat/skills based system; and this good be a terrific rpg (or even action rpg if you prefer the combat to be real time) to determine what your character is capable of - perhaps he's a brute who is physically fit; but has a rather low IQ so he can be manipulated. Or perhaps, he's a rather intelligent; but devious punk who enjoys causing pain to others. Or, perhaps, he's a charismatic leader type who can possibly convince the others to work together (but not guaranteed to succeed and 'wooing' everyone since not everyone could be convinceable).

 

Add on to this, the numerous chances for multiple endings, multiple ways to interact with other characters, this could be a super duper awesome classic RPG.

 

Game over, FAKE RPGers, game over.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Volourn

[Sand]

*Sand pounces on Volourn and screams "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!" then walks away*

 

It could be a mixture of LOST and the Weakest Link... with weapons. Losts of weapons.

 

Definitely an Action CRPG material.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

Doesn't even have to be ana ction RPG. In fact, it could be rtaher possible to make it so the PC can avoid most combat much like in FO. It be hard for the PC to so espciially if they meet an npc with violent tendencies; but they could always have the option of running, hiding, or gaining help from a fighter who would join them.

[Sand]

Hmmm... Yes, but I think it would probably be better built and more widely accepted as an Action CRPG in control style, but more traditional elements in character interaction and story development.

 

Basic rundown:

Jade Empire style combat controls...

NWN2/PST character development and story progression...

Oblivion/Stalker exploration...

First Person/Third Person view toggle...

Edited March 27, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

Yeah; but with only around 100 + a handulf of other npcs in the 'game world'; you really cna't have the amount of combat a typical action rpg (even a rpg focused one like JE). Or even the amount of combat a so called full on RPG like FO, BG, or NWN2 had. Even if you throw in animals as extra fodder (or possibility to befriend those).

 

Still an action rpg could work. My point though, you could make a rpg out of this scenario if it was wished. The action rpg would posisbly sell more if the populist theory is to be believed; but I don't think thsoe who'd be interested in a BR tpe game would be into it for the action part for the most part; but the psychology/choices in tough situation part.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Volourn

[Krookie]

Sounds more fitting for an FPS than an RPG. The concept lacks in story and focuses on combat. Ultimately, it's too bare an idea for me to have a particularly good opinion.

 

Make it a multiplayer FPS with traps, you might have something.

 

 

Only problem with making the single player and FPS is you could probably take down the other 99 guys in about an hour.

[Tale]

A. You say this would lack a story.

I said his concept lacked story.

The story here is not epic heroic quest; but one of survival.

His concept doesn't feature any story beyond you're on an island and you're going to kill people or be killed. His concept doesn't yet feature any further elaboration on the story, so it lacks story.

A RPG doesn't need a super duper tight story to be ARPG

Never made that claim.

B. Focus on combat. Not really sorry.

Yes, actually, sorry.

First off, the idea that hints at that a RPG can only be a good RPG if there is no or very little combat.

No, it doesn't. It explicitly expresses my opinion that his concept focuses on combat. I make no implications about lack of combat in RPGS.

 

I will elaborate a little on my post since it caused Volourn's overthinking to go nuts and read way too much into a short response. His concept has a focus on combat. Combat with guns is currently best supported by first person shooters. But, now that I think of it, if built it as an action RPG with the action carried out in the same manner as those isometric shooter arcade action games. It would still be firstly a shooter in that fashion, not an RPG.

 

It could be served as an RPG, if the idea is fleshed out more. But, off the concept so far presented, would probably be better off as an action game.

 

He mentions skill system like Deus Ex if a first person shooter. Giving that some thought, my concern would be combat related skills. He's going to need to give serious consideration to how skills are raised, because with only 100 enemies (which, since everyone is after everyone else, a player's chances of killing all 100 himself are slim), the opportunities for using combat related skills can be limited. Even if hunting for food is incorporated.

 

A faction system is mentioned and it seems kind of out of place given the scenario. I would think an enforced everyman for himself situation lends towards the development of factions. Suspending that disbelief, I don't see what quests they would end up offering.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Tale

[Azarkon]

This game requires what the game industry currently lacks - good AI.

[mkreku]

I thought the idea sounded excellent, but I imagine it would be incredibly difficult to pull it off. The entire game would play out as a series of friendly/unfriendly encounters between the 100 NPC's trapped on the island, so there would be no story. There would only be socializing and combat. But it would be really neat trying to make friends and allies among 100 people that are all out to kill you. If only 90 has to die, you might get lucky and choose the 10 that survives as your friends.. or one could turn against you at any time.. or betray you.. sell you out. The possibilities are endless.

 

There would have to be an awful lot of (incredibly well-written) dialogue for you to be able to "bond" with the NPC's, or else you'd just do a Krookie (kill them all within the first hour). Also, you'd have to present the player with powerful incentives for letting some of the NPC's live (the ones you're going to try to befriend), like them knowing the location of a forgotten hunter's cabin or something. Or that each and everyone of the NPC's has some vital, unique skills that you could take advantage of..

 

Oh, and for all the non-believers of decent AI: buy STALKER.

[Oerwinde]

This is both a horrible idea, and the best idea ever.

 

With a limited game map and limited number of NPCs, a LOT of depth could be put into the conversation and skill system, and if done right, this could be the most replayable RPG ever. With nearly unlimited possibilities for how things turn out in the game. There would likely be a limited amount of endings, but between the beginning and the ending, every playthrough would be completely different.

[Diamond]

In the movie, all participants had the collars with mini-explosives (that's how game masters ensured noone escapes the island and that only one survivor lives). It is a brilliant idea, but sadly, the movie was bad beyond comprehension, because Japanese school kids make crap actors and the whole movie felt like anime, but with real people.

[Oerwinde]

The collars would be the excuse to team up with techie kids, or to focus on tech skills yourself. Because if someone could figure out how to disable the collars, I'm sure everyone would want to be their friend.

[Spider]

In the movie, all participants had the collars with mini-explosives (that's how game masters ensured noone escapes the island and that only one survivor lives). It is a brilliant idea, but sadly, the movie was bad beyond comprehension, because Japanese school kids make crap actors and the whole movie felt like anime, but with real people.

 

I fiercly disagree. I think the acting is really good and the movie is fantastic. One of the best movies I've ever seen as a matter of fact.

 

As for the concept fueling an RPG, I think it could be really interesting. I especially like the 72 hours real time idea, although it would probably be cut down to 48 or less, it's hard to not make the game feel like it drags on otherwise.

[Sand]

Make the game calculate time in real time, and have the contest run 24 hours. There must be 1 survivor at the 24 hour mark or all those who are still alive gets their head blown off. However, there might be a way to get rid of the collar, with the techies, then even going after the ones who stage this. There may be 100 contestants, but don't forget the wild animals and possibly genetic experiments running lose, and the main bad guys themselves.

[Diamond]

I fiercly disagree. I think the acting is really good and the movie is fantastic. One of the best movies I've ever seen as a matter of fact.

Believe it or not, I really wanted to like it. Really. But I just can't.

 

Make the game calculate time in real time, and have the contest run 24 hours. There must be 1 survivor at the 24 hour mark or all those who are still alive gets their head blown off. However, there might be a way to get rid of the collar, with the techies, then even going after the ones who stage this. There may be 100 contestants, but don't forget the wild animals and possibly genetic experiments running lose, and the main bad guys themselves.

Meh, 24 hours is too little time for any meaningful character interaction.

[Sand]

That is just the timer for the collars, and the bad guys don't really want you to have any meaningful time with the others. They want you all to kill each other. Going on the expanded points of once the collars are off, a possible story point, the characters can go after the main bad guys themselves which will be much longer.

[Diamond]

But that degenerates to a very basic idea of killing bad guys, which is featured in every single CRPG in the universe. No emotional tension, no intrigue. *yawn*

[Volourn]

"But that degenerates to a very basic idea of killing bad guys"

 

Not neccessarily. Under the right circusmatnces, and a high speech skill; dialogue can be used to 3either convince the ones who set it that theyw ere wrong or get the public at alrge to turn on them. Some people have tunnel vision and cna only see violence. See outside the box.

[Diamond]

I didn't mean physical violence. What I meant is that if the game is over too soon, the whole "Battle Royale" concept turns into a fairly standard plot: a confrontation between two parties. How is that different to every other CRPG out there?

[Volourn]

Nothing wrong with that, i think. As lonfg as there are choices, and consequences.

 

Though, imo, it should take awhile to deal with your fellow Islands. I like the 24-48 hour idea. Make the island rather large too so you aren't bumping into each other every 5 minutes. Not to mention add in animals that must be avoided, or even agroup of 'watchers' whoa re on the island making sure the game goes as planned. Lots of interetsing thinsg cna occur to keep the Island interesting before the grand finale.

[Spider]

I fiercly disagree. I think the acting is really good and the movie is fantastic. One of the best movies I've ever seen as a matter of fact.

Believe it or not, I really wanted to like it. Really. But I just can't.

 

To each their own. I'm certainly not trying to force my opinion on you. I mostly wanted to present another viewpoint to anyone reading this thread interested in the movie.

[Hell Kitty]

I loved the movie, the sequel, not so much.