Modern Conflict is a game idea that has evolved over the past year or two, and is now second on my game priority list behind PoPR, so I thought I’d present the idea and get feedback.
The games story is based on a WWIII scenario, of which I’ve come up with one possibility so far. The basic story (as of now) a Middle Eastern coalition (United Arab Nations, UAN) invades Israel and stops oil trade with the US and much of the EU. The “Euro-American Coalition” (EAC), because of dependence on oil, obligation to protect Israel, and fear of an increase in terrorism and unrest in the world, intervenes. North Korea uses the opportunity of EAC concentration in the Middle East given to form a military alliance with China, forming the Eastern Asia Alliance (EAA) and attacks South Korea, Japan, southern Russia, and Taiwan. Russia joins the EAC at this point, in order to receive aid in fighting the EAA. So amidst all of these conflicts and fighting in all of these locations is where the player comes in…
Although the story is somewhat cliché, that’s not what makes the game unique. What does make it unique? It’s combination of RPG and FPS elements and realism. You won’t be playing a random unnamed soldier, respawning every time you die or stepping into the shoes of a fictional character, loading at the last checkpoint every time you die. In fact, you should rarely ever die, if you play right. This is where my idea of realism comes in. In real war, the casualty rate isn’t an average of 95% like most games would like you to believe, but even in the very worst of cases, around 50%. So the game will be carried out realistically in all aspects to achieve the feeling of real war. Longer engagement distances, more realistic accuracy, more careful AI, big consequences for being shot, massive, realistic-sized battles, intense firefights making you scared to even pop your head up for more than a second; these kind of game features are what will mimic the true combat of war. Basically the game will be more of a simulation than a standard FPS, only with all the crap parts of being a soldier (long walks/rides, doing nothing for hours, etc.) taken out and filled with a variety of realistic combat situations.
So where does the RPG element come in? You will create a character that can be a variety of classes (sniper, rifleman, automatic rifleman, spec ops etc.), but once chosen, you can’t change, because you will follow the same soldier all the way from basic training through the war. This goes for your squad as well, who will not be nameless, flat characters, but fellow soldiers that you will grow to know and (hopefully) care about. The class you choose at the beginning of training will affect what your missions are and what role you play in the war. An infantryman may be part of a large invasion force, while spec ops may go in before the main force and disrupt enemy infrastructure, while a sniper may be sent ahead of the force on recon missions, or dropped deep into enemy territory to take out essential targets (where your success or failure could affect the outcome of the war).
Another RPG element is your advancement in rank as you go through the war. You will start as a newly recruited private, but you could work your way up (depending on your position and performance) to commanding an entire squad of 12 or more soldiers.
The game will not be constructed based on levels, but rather a dynamic and pseudo-open world system where you will fight across a variety of premade maps, but your actions, victories, and losses on each will affect the course of the war. For example, say you are fighting through Israel and a building is taken down by an airstrike, you win the battle and move on to the next map in the game, but you lose the next battle, and the enemy pushes you back to the previous map, the building that was destroyed by the airstrike when you last fought here will still be destroyed. This system of a non-guaranteed and pre-scripted victory also means that the war could last for any amount of time, depending on how well the dynamic AI and you do…or how badly you do.
This persistent world also carries over to other aspects of the game, for example, if one of the squad mates you’ve come to know and like dies, he will be gone forever. If one is wounded, he will be gone for a length of time dependent on his wounds. If you use too much ammunition, you better start conserving until the next shipment gets in.
The game would revolve around completing certain objectives, much like real war, other than just defeating all enemy soldiers. These would also be dynamic and varied, depending on the situation and your role.
While the player won’t be just sitting there for hours like in real war, they won’t just be dropped in the middle of a conflict either, rather, time will skip from inactive parts to things like a patrol, raid, or advancement. This will also go the other way, meaning that in the middle of intense fights there will be an “adrenaline” button, that if pressed, the player can speed up and slow down time slightly (and movement, so it won’t be like cheating) to convey the intensity and length of engagements that real battles consist of.
Modern Conflict is not a predetermined game, one where the game designers decide who wins, who dies, who loses, and when, but where the player and his fellow soldiers decide the outcome. Even if the player fights his best, they may still lose a battle.
If the player does die, there will be bigger consequences than just respawning or reloading, but I haven’t quite figured out what, and am open to suggestions.
So, you may be asking, is this too ambitious? Yes, of course it is, but that won’t stop me, ambitious is what I do
.
Let me know what you think.
