An Open World FPS set in a city.

[Freaklore1]

For quite awhile have I been thinking about this concept of having an Open World FPS set in a city,so i made this topic so we can discuss about it.

Ever since i played Crysis 2,looking at the environment in that game was the inspiration for this idea.

Yes i know there is the first person view that was added to GTA 5,but what im thinking about is a bit more similar to a almost evacuated city.

Kinda like Crysis 2 or The Division or the movie Escape From New York with Kurt Russel when it come to the story and location,a city wich most civillians were evacuated,only peoples remaining are criminals and mercenaries.

The player will have to explore the 'free roaming' city doing missions (like Far Cry),like retrieving things,saving hostages and killing targets.

to be continued.....

[Freaklore1]

The city is big,you can explore the desolated streets,alleys,some buildings/apartments,rooftops and underground tunnels (subway,sewers).

There is some vehicles to move around you,but you will mostly be on foot if you want to explore everything of course.

Weapons can be found and customized.

Also when you are in a building,you can still shoot from a window if you want to take out a target from a far for exemple.

So what do you think guys ?

Let's discuss about it.

[Nash]

Basically the "Unreal Unity Indie Game Dev Starter Pack"

Also why TF did you make 2 posts that are minutes apart when you could have put it all in 1 post?

[Freaklore1]

Uh yeah about the double posting,well...

The thing is that im on my PS3 right now,im not sure how much letters i can put with it,so when i saw that i couldnt put more on my first post i continued it with a 2nd one,sorry.

And if you are wondering why i didnt use my PC,well i cant right now since im kind of cleaning and fixing it for the moment,and i couldnt wait to post the topic.

[Shadelight]

You can just edit to add to your posts, no need to double post all the time.

[Freaklore1]

So any of you guys would like to partake on the subject of the topic instead of just derailing it,that would be much appreciated.

So back to the subject,what do you guys think of this concept ?
Have you guys ever tought about this ?

[wildweasel]

So back to the subject,what do you guys think of this concept ?
Have you guys ever tought about this ?

I have often thought about it, and I think it is a great idea. Edit Post buttons should be everywhere, I think. :V :V :V

[Rachael]

On one hand, he's bringing these jokes upon himself... unwittingly, maybe, or not... and I always love a good laugh...

... but he does have a point. >_<

[wildweasel]

In all seriousness, I do have a fondness for a well-constructed open world, and I love the first-person mode in GTA5 for allowing me to notice details (like the fact that my video card cannot handle displaying said details...*cough*). I feel like a lot of open-world games only stick to the third-person perspective because it is what everybody else is already doing. But my real focus, I think, is on the cities, the part that so many games have arguably gotten wrong.

I like cities, especially ones that feel like people live here, or have lived here at some point. Not copy-pasted buildings and streets, facades that cannot be entered, etc. That might be why I loved Shenmue back in the day, and why I continue to love the Yakuza games (at least 60% of the city can be entered and interacted with). If you'll permit me to be a bit wistful and artsy, a city is its own story. No city planner has ever sat down and said, "Okay, this is the business district and all the buildings will look like they're from the 1910s." Yet that is exactly what the level designers wind up having to do; this is an art, not a game of SimCity. The real key to making a city that doesn't suck is to consider that your buildings will all need to be there for a reason. One can't just plonk down prefabs and expect it to look natural. Real buildings have to be designed around the specific piece of land on which they're built. Even though prefab buildings are a thing - supermarkets, restaurants, manufactured homes - many have to be adapted to the location. Maybe the Wal-Mart you're building can't have its loading dock placed out back, because the driveway into the loading area is on a very busy high-speed street where it would not be safe to have truck-trailers constantly backing in and out. Maybe the high-rise apartment building's fire escapes won't fit in the small alleyway space, so the building itself has to be shrunk, or the windows and fire escapes repositioned to the sidewalk instead.

But above all else, there has to be interactivity, in my opinion. I didn't really pay the buildings much mind in GTA3 if they didn't have any reason for me to actually stop and look at them. There were restaurants, and car washes, and a mansion or two, but I don't remember them because I, the player, was never instructed or required to do anything around them. On the other hand, the car dealership with the huge plate-glass windows containing the fastest car in the game? Luigi's strip club? The public restroom in the middle of Staunton Island? I'd know where to find those, because I had reason to go back to them, time after time.

[shotfan]

But above all else, there has to be interactivity, in my opinion. I didn't really pay the buildings much mind in GTA3 if they didn't have any reason for me to actually stop and look at them. There were restaurants, and car washes, and a mansion or two, but I don't remember them because I, the player, was never instructed or required to do anything around them. On the other hand, the car dealership with the huge plate-glass windows containing the fastest car in the game? Luigi's strip club? The public restroom in the middle of Staunton Island? I'd know where to find those, because I had reason to go back to them, time after time.

Recently I was thinking for some time which locations in GTA3 were not used in a way meaningful to gameplay (no mission involved, no rampage, no hidden packages or other items, or nothing else required for 100%). Turns out there are plenty. Like that compound of disused railway tracks in Harwood; Harwood Park; Aspartia Waterfront Park; alleyways in central St. Marks*; the storage area under Stauton's side of Callahan Bridge; the shoreside tunnel under Shoreside Bridge. I still remember all of these, even though nothing of this is required to be visited.
This makes Shoreside Vale even more of a letdown - the damn district/island has nothing in the way of interesting locales that could be visited on their own**. Nothing attractive, nothing worth looking into. Because it is all so tiny. What is worse is that SV is so inconvenient to navigate because of that dam(n) river. What a rush job.

EDIT: *Maybe not this one, since I recalled that this area has an anti-Wanted star and AK47 spawns. Another 'passive' area instead: a trailer park/parking lot in south Chinatown, near the school.
EDIT2: **To be fair (and generous), you may count the bottom-level facility of the Cochrane Dam as such place, considering it is rather out of way of anything else and that The Exchange takes place only at the middle level of the dam.

[wildweasel]

Well, I suppose GTA3 is a slightly bad example, considering how many (willful) cuts they made in the wake of 9/11. But that's an entirely different discussion.

[hideousdestructor]

So basically an MMO with minimal wandering about in the wilderness but possibly more commutes and mandatory dungeons between locations.

(also, idea: MMA MMO. sorry)

[YukiHerz]

But above all else, there has to be interactivity, in my opinion. I didn't really pay the buildings much mind in GTA3 if they didn't have any reason for me to actually stop and look at them. There were restaurants, and car washes, and a mansion or two, but I don't remember them because I, the player, was never instructed or required to do anything around them. On the other hand, the car dealership with the huge plate-glass windows containing the fastest car in the game? Luigi's strip club? The public restroom in the middle of Staunton Island? I'd know where to find those, because I had reason to go back to them, time after time.

Recently I was thinking for some time which locations in GTA3 were not used in a way meaningful to gameplay (no mission involved, no rampage, no hidden packages). Turns out there are plenty. Like that compound of disused railway tracks in Harwood; Harwood Park; Aspartia Waterfront Park; alleyways in central St. Marks; the storage area under Callahan Bridge; the shorside tunnel under Shoreside Bridge. I still remember all of these, even though nothing of this is required to be visited.
This makes Shoreside Vale even more of a letdown - the damn district/island has nothing in the way of interesting locales that could be visited on their own. Nothing attractive, nothing worth looking into. Because it is all so tiny. What is worse is that SV is so inconvenient to navigate because of that dam(n) river. What a rush job.

There's quite a few locations that you visit in Liberty City Stories that are usually skimmed over in a playthrough of 3, can't remember which off the top of my head, but the same can be said about Vice City Stories.

[leileilol]

Everyone has this idea, even I did at one point. What matters is execution of course

I stopped (in 2008) because I couldn't code a working car nodes system for ai drivers and I couldn't plan cities. but i did have real-time day/night cycles and a drivable vehicle in the worst looking programmer terrain map that looks like some sort of interstate 76 skirmish stage

[DoomRater]

Zombie survival in a city has definitely been done. If Minecraft's new structure blocks allow for generation of city worlds, we could even see some city multiplayer survival there too.