There can be only....3?! 2009 Megagame Concept
Well, I was thinking one day about the evolution of the megagame. I was pondering the changes that have already been made, such as disallowing LA R'lyeh/Ermor, the choice of victory conditions, size of the map, etc, and I began to wonder about the setting of the game itself. My thought was, that the uniqueness of these games is only partially expressed through the game settings, but equally so by the behaviors of the players within.
Before I brooch my own concept, I'd like to make clear: This thread is meant to touch off discussion, whether you like my own idea or not, say so, and throw yours in the ring as well.
So bear with me, this is a bit unorthodox, but only as unorthodox as a 60 player game. I would call this concept "Wicked Web", and it starts with a simple premise - 1 victor out of 60 people enforces a certain dynamic in the game, and perhaps lends itself to a game where people do not interact enough to justify the size of the game. So I thought "heck, a 20 player game is still big, and has its own winner, what if we had 3?".
This was where my imagination took off..... The idea is that only 3 people will win this game, but that means that you do not have to defeat everyone to be one of those 3 victors when the game is called. But it DOES mean you will almost surely have to make some friends as you go, and cooperate with them if you wish to succeed. Mega-alliances of the "best" players should be largely mitigated by the scope of the map, and the fact that you won't likely succeed without choosing "friends" who share a border. On the other hand, fortune is a fickle mistress, and who can say that if you should slip, that your old buddy won't fall in with a rougher crowd, and you would find yourself on the end of a pike? I'm seeing a vicious and bloodthirsty game where no war is as simple as it seems, because while there is always (okay, ALMOST always) someone larger than you who wants a piece, there are also always people smaller than you, who want to peck at you until you crumble. I'm seeing a game of shifting alliances, and unlikely bedfellows, where say Lanka befriends Bogarus, not because he wants to be the baddest alliance in the world (and get ganged up on for it?), but because if he protects Bogarus, he can trade blood slaves for other gems and forged goods, and will have a very potent ally in the late game (not to mention a very grateful ally, which is not always the case).
I know that we are a ways off from worrying about organizing this game, but I just thought it would be fun to switch things around a bit, and do something that has never been done before. We've had team games, but those are intended to marry you to a teammate, I am thinking of an alliances game, where you must choose every turn who to support, and who to destroy.
|
Threaded Mode