Cracked Columnists

The 7 Best Ideas for Video Games (That Will Never Get Made)

It's a golden era for video games. Services like Kickstarter are funding everything from new low-budget titles to blockbuster sequels for long-neglected classics. If you have a good idea, you can now get funding and distribution and make some solid-gold-hooker money. But then, that's the rub, isn't it? First you need a good idea, and those are hard to find ...

Wait, no they're fucking not! Look here, and here. As gamers, we all have our brilliant, perfect, tragically nonexistent game idea. I started this thread to ask people for theirs, and below you'll find just a small sampling of games so ingenious, you'll punch your own crotch just to distract yourself from the pain of not owning them. And if you work in the game industry, you should know that all of these ideas, as well as those in the comments below, are up for grabs. You don't have to share any money with us, you don't even have to credit us -- in fact, we'd probably rather you not, as typing our names would take valuable seconds that could be spent building these awesome games and giving them to us right God damn now.

NOTE: The previous volumes in this series tended to focus on "how they could be better," or "how they could go wrong," which I realize now was stupid. Video game publishers are a notoriously fickle and cowardly species, easily startled by "could-be-betters" and "could-go-wrongs." So I'll try a different tack. I'll let the ideas stand on their own, and then try to sum up in no uncertain terms why each will make you 1 billion real U.S. dollars. It is a promise. Each idea: $1 billion. So start investing in bigger pockets, dickwads, because if you make ANY of these games even close to right, your pants will literally be exploding with money.

#7. An Open-World Biker Game With Decent Controls

Wikipedia

As a professional Internet, I understand that you may not trust me with your ideas. So if I'm asking you to show yours, it's only fair that I show mine first. So here it is: a motorcycle game. But here's the catch ... it can't be a total piece of shit.

Impossible!

Virtually every motorcycle game is just a re-skinned car racing game. Sure, there have been a few bulky, incredibly expensive arcade peripherals that have gotten part of the biker experience right, but it shouldn't be that hard to port a motorcycle racing game to a console. The standard controller is laid out a lot like a bike's controls anyway: You have two sets of pressure-sensitive triggers and buttons right next to each other on the underside of the controller. Those are your handlebars. Push on the trigger with varying degrees of pressure to push on the respective bar, and you have a pretty accurate simulation of counter-steering. Just above the triggers you have two buttons. On a bike, they're levers: clutch on the left, the front (or main) brake on the right. One thumb works the D-pad, which could easily control the 1-down, 4-up shifting pattern on a bike. The other thumb rests on the right analog stick, which controls degrees of throttle. For advanced users, the left stick could manage body position, and one of the buttons could control the rear brake. That's it: Those are all the vital controls of a motorcycle mapped perfectly to an existing console controller.

Wikipedia
This is the only time having a keyboard/mouse will screw you.

Riding a motorcycle does not feel at all how it's presented in video games. They usually have you control the throttle with a trigger and steering by the analog stick. This gives you twitchy, inaccurate control, because it's actually too much input. You're not twisting a great big steering wheel on a bike; you're just subtly pushing on bars. The triggers make much more sense for steering inputs. Third-person sandbox games are the worst about this: Bikes are practically unusable in GTA or Saints Row -- they're just too fast for the clumsy controls, and you're too disconnected to manage them -- and yet that's precisely when it would be the most fun! I actively avoid stealing bikes in sandbox games, even though it is a consequences-free environment for me to explore the pros and cons of strapping my crotch to a giant steel missile. That's because in real life, you push, lean, and roll on the throttle to turn, while in video games, you corner tightly by yanking the handlebars, hitting the handbrake button, and "drifting," which is A) much less satisfying and B) a great way to volunteer as the ammunition for a meat catapult on a real bike.

How It Will Make You 1 Billion Real U.S. Dollars

Racing games occupy more of a niche market, like hardcore simulators. You're not going to make bank that way. But if you got the controls right first, then put gamers in the role of a hardcore outlaw in a GTA/Saints Row/Just Cause-style open world -- sort of like The Lost and Damned tried to do -- you would have all of the money from every motorcycle rider for the accurate controls, in addition to all the money of every gamer who just wants to ramp that fire escape without twitch-steering into a dump truck at the last second. Plus, this control scheme still leaves three whole buttons free! You could map those to hands, feet, and weapons for devastating combos to unleash against other riders at high sp-

Oh, you know what? Just make another Road Rash.

Wikipedia
In fact, why are you making any other games at all, ever?

I guess that's what I'm asking for. Make an open-world Road Rash and get the controls right, and I will choke your whole family to death with my money -- just generation after generation of your loved ones, all suffocating and drowning in my cash, forever.

#6. Possession, the Game

CNET/Gamespot

By kacerolo91

"My idea: A game where the protagonist is a spirit possessing people."

"Basically, it's as follows: You can possess other people, and you immediately can use any of their abilities/powers (that is, possess a soldier and you'll use their weapons, possess an old lady and you'll have to walk slowly)."

"The key of the game is you can only spend so much time controlling the same person until they start to struggle and fight back. They eventually kill themselves, leaving you without a body, and you can only survive a short amount of time without being inside someone. As the game progress[es], the enemies will know about you and your powers, so you will have to act as the person you are controlling so the rest of the people don't know that he's possessed."

"For example, if you are discovered and some soldiers attack you, you can take the body of that soldier and keep attacking and going after the guy you were possessing before. Then, you can go back to base with the soldiers and start a big mess from the inside."

How It Will Make You 1 Billion Real U.S. Dollars

There was a Nintendo GameCube title, Geist, that tried to do this. And it was pretty friggin' rad. But it was ultimately limited by budget and technology. It ended up being more or less a level-based shooter when it needed to be much more open world. I know I harp on open-world games, because they're my personal favorite, but I understand that level-based design is often stronger. Not here. This idea needs a Watch Dogs-style reactive world to flourish, and further, it needs some complicated stealth mechanics incorporated (that whole "hobble like the old lady/act like the soldier" bit is the best part of this concept).

That was the problem with Geist: We weren't quite there yet, technologically. At least, not on consoles. But look at games like Dishonored or, to a lesser extent, Assassin's Creed. They're massively successful, largely open-world games with mostly successful stealth mechanics that made pornographic amounts of cash. And yet no current sequel to Geist is being planned. If you want to cash in on the hottest trend of this gaming generation, the possession mechanic is your trump card. In short: If you give gamers the ability to stealth-assassinate elite guardsmen while wearing somebody's Nana, we will give you 1 billion real U.S. dollars.

#5. For the Love of God, Any Kind of Mature Pokemon RPG

Wikipedia

This is the idea that crops up the most, so let's just take the two most common variants on the theme:

The Pokemon Army

By Spudfella

"Give me a Pokemon game where the goal is to take over the world. Same classic start-up; you get one low-level Pokemon. But instead of capturing Pokemon for sport or for some Professor somewhere, you're building an army. I want to ride on [the] back of a Charizard and light Sliph Co. Tower on fire. Give me hundreds of Pidgeys and let me go Hitchcockian on Pallet Town."

"Honestly? By the end of the game I'll have caught a dozen legendary Pokemon and about two or three hundred others. That's a standing army, and I want a chance to test the might of my cumulative effort. That's what an RPG should be about, right? Let's strip all the arbitrary rules out of the Pokemon universe and let me become PokeMonarch."

"Maybe even add an option at the end, after you've beaten the Elite Four, you're given an option to begin conquest mode."

The Pokemon MMORPG

By Crossfiyah

"Two words: Pokemon MMORPG."

"No random encounters. Fully three-dimensional Pokemon, roaming the countryside, ala World of Warcraft. All to scale, all terrifying. You would have a companion Pokemon that walks around with you, and gets into battles while you give commands. You can carry six around like usual and swap them out mid-battle. It's the three-dimensional Pokemon RPG that should have existed back when the game started coming out on the N64. Or at the very least GameCube. Or the Wii. Why the hell has this never been done yet?"

"If this game came out, I would work just enough to keep the electricity and Internet bills on, and to buy enough food to keep me alive. The rest of my time would be spent playing this game."

How It Will Make You 1 Billion Real U.S. Dollars

Listen, game developers: I, like you, do not understand any of the words in the above paragraphs. I missed the window on Pokemon by a few years, and now it sounds like somebody reciting obscure Japanese stock prices. But visit the Perfect Game thread and you will see this notion repeated over and over. These people grew up with Pokemon, but that's the thing: They grew up. They're ready to explore some new territory with your property. Nobody's saying you have to stop making kid-friendly games, but give us a more adult-oriented open-world RPG-style Pokemon game -- let us Char our foes with Izards, or Poke an entire village into annihilation with our Mons, or whatever the fuck these guys are talking about -- and we will give you 1 billion real U.S. dollars.

#4. The Hunger Games, the ... Game

Uproxx

By garyglitter

"I really like the idea of Battle Royale: The Game. A game that's not long and not narrative-driven but totally randomized, so it takes only a few hours to finish the game, but every time you restart it's totally different. You get different weapons [and] tools and start in a different place on the island. It's like the way you never play two games of solitaire that are the same."

"You load the game and it's the dead of night and you have say ... a frying pan and a butcher's knife. A map, a torch, some health stuff, and nothing else. Maybe the other players are real-life online players. Maybe they're computerized. But you're on a huge expansive island with amazing detail, you can use anything as a weapon, or to lure people (maybe you could get firecrackers as a weapon to make noise) into certain locations. All you do is fight whoever you find, if they don't kill you first (randomized -- no person in the same place twice), gain their weapons, and the object is to be the last one left."

"Realistic health levels and spacing out of the action would build tension, the longer you play on it the more you'd want to finish it."

How It Will Make You 1 Billion Real U.S. Dollars

The idea is pure, brutal, and simple: truly randomized PVP. It is random in every sense of the word. Random in the assortment of weapons. Random in placement. Random in supplies. And there is nothing else. There's no greater point to the game beyond straight-up elimination-style competition. I don't like multiplayer games, I especially dislike PVP multiplayer games, and yet I had only one concern while reading this Perfect Game idea: How would I ever stop playing it? The variations are infinite. And what's more, the technology and mechanics are totally feasible. This could easily be a Far Cry 3 mod, for example.

And yet by stripping away the unnecessary mechanics and totally abandoning the concept of fair and balanced gameplay for all players at all expenses, you might make the most addictive multiplayer game in history. Plus, if you strike now, you can tap into that Hunger Games hype. Fill the loading time between rounds with confused young girls lusting after pouty-eyed shirtless halfwits. We don't care. Do whatever you need to do to draw your demographic. We gamers do not give a shit: If you give us Battle Royale Island, even if it's littered with annoying teenage drama, we will give you 1 billion real U.S. dollars.

Recommended For Your Pleasure

Robert Brockway

  • Rss

More by Robert Brockway:

See More

Other Columnists:

See More
To turn on reply notifications, click here

2,576 Comments

The Cracked Podcast

Choosing to "Like" Cracked has no side effects, so what's the worst that could happen?

The Weekly Hit List

Sit back... Relax... We'll do all the work.
Get a weekly update on the best at Cracked. Subscribe now!