If you're starting out just jump the fuck in on whatever you're passionate about. There's a good chance you'll throw away whatever you make, but at least you're learning the specific skills that are building towards what you really wanna do. And tossing a dozen prototypes before you get to the winner is totally normal anyway, what's the difference?
Absolutely. I never understood why I need to add artificial "goals" or whatever to overcome in order to progress in game development. They treat it as if it's an RPG, first you play the shitty low level quests, then you play the cool side-quests, and then it's time for your main quest.
-------------------------------------------
A first-person shooter with a laughably simple premise.
I want to acknowledge that I have no game-loop in place. I think it will involve engaging the enemy for thrill-seek, but I have no idea how to translate this into video game design terms. Has anyone ever played the original Soldier of Fortune or its sequel Double Helix? Man that game is so awesome, you just blow off people's limbs. The neo-nazi levels were crazy, I think it's partly because of the soundtrack. It almost feels like conditioning, which I guess is fitting, since John Mullins (the main character) is an expert mercenary.
I mentioned the levels before, but I want to make it clear that I'd prefer the levels to be based on realism, at least to some extent. I don't mean the graphical fidelity or the texture, I mean the overall feeling the level gives off is that of a possible place, which could exist. Of course, if it interrupts the map flow of the level, considerations for it will take precedence over realism.
I talk about as if I'm going to make this game, although that's probably not going to happen.
For one thing, you'll be probably be killing over 500 soldiers, like in F.E.A.R. which will probably include Special Forces Operatives, which is stretching a bit the capabilities of a 12 year-old, even if he is 180 cms (and possibly 120 IQ, I just made it up). Thematically, I don't know how to collaborate it. That's insane, even killing one person could fuck up a person's psyche in the real world when he is an adult. I hope the actual game would be fun enough, so that people would initiate suspension of disbelief. It's popular now to refer to 80s action movies as over the top, but they really weren't. They may have struggled with realistic premises, but they obeyed the laws of the real world, definitely for the most part. That's kind of what I want for this game. BERSERK is a manga that follows this rule, it started out in 1989.
I want things to have an impact on the battlefield, while you feel you can control its outcome. Things like your tactical maneuvering, your choice of gear - but I don't know how many weapons you'd carry - how much time you wait before you initiate contact, scars and chipped out surfaces of buildings, particles affecting visibility, etc.
I hate RPG hybrids, unless it's some hack & slash action game, made by Japanese people, from the PS2 era. That's artificial progress, it doesn't really enhance your thinking. They needlessly pad out a game and waste the player's time. Now, I don't think it will be a particularly smart game, but like Far Cry the original, or Crysis, it should respect the player's intellectual ability to think solutions to overcome significant obstacles, such as defeating a company of soldiers, which is supported by several APCs or a tank. Defeating a squad of special forces would require some effort.
I don't think enemies should be bullet spunges, but I don't think the player-character should have CoD 2 hallmarks like regenerating health.
I'm thinking the game's length would be no longer than between 4-6 hours. I don't agree with the idea that you have to sink time in your games. Time is precious and I think linear stories have a place even today's market. If a game is good, surely one would want to replay it from time to time. I don't want players to be playing my game constantly.
Also, this might sound stupid, but I don't really believe in difficulty selections. I think a game should challenge you, but it should probably be easy once you discover the solution. Maybe this contradicts my earlier statements.
EDIT1: My hope is that it can be overcome what plagues games of the BSP-era. Where the beginning or first third of the game is excellent, the middle or second third becomes "meh" and it teeters off into the last third. I have no idea how to do that.
EDIT2: Maybe since Turkey is a nationalist and based nation, I won't have it as an adversary for the Slavs of !@#$%^&*(). Instead, !@#$%^&*() and Turkey already would have had a war, because of a prior Turkish uprising. Without heeding her allies or waiting for the approval of the UN, Turkey lashes out at !@#$%^&*() in order to protect her ethnic peoples. This is some time before 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq. After taking heavy losses, Turkey decides to give up, manage its refugee crisis and recover. The junta of !@#$%^&*(), with the blessing of the tsar, continues on with its extermination of the democratic/republican opposition.
The reason democratic militants exist is because they believe in democracy and in the values of the first and only !@#$%^&*() president, who was a victim of the coup de'tat in 1997, in the second year of his second term (communism fell circa 1989 and restructuring happened into next year). They would wage an very capable insurgency against the new government, which they view as illegitimate. It's effectively a civil war.
They would be defeated in 2007-2009. America and the West wouldn't aid them much, because of the GWOT. But after the death of Saddam and Bin Laden they were free to pour significant resources and manpower to fight against !@#$%^&*() (population approx. 40 mln - 50 mln), which would have been a dangerous threat, albeit sanctioned to Hell, suffered a civil war and a war with another country.
EDIT3: I believe in cut-scenes and cinematics. I think they are a great way to continue the story while the player takes a break and they can enhance character interactions in a much more meaningful way than just going up to people in first-person and listening what they have to stay while you stay in a boxed room, like in Half-Life 1 & 2.
Metal Gear Solid ( from 1998don't change into emoticon) had it right, that's where the direction should have went. Instead of making the overall experience cinematic, games should have had cinematic pieces that divorced the player from the gameplay to enhance something about the game, be it character, plot or action set piece, whatever.
Cutscenes will be used to advance certain elements of the story, including its themes and ideas. Maybe they shouldn't be pervasive as MGS 4: GotP, but hopefully there will be a lot of them. I also prefer traditional film making techniques as opposed to what the late 90s and 2000s invented.
