Hows this for a unique idea
by Cole "Tinman" Stauffer · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 11/16/2001 (5:13 pm) · 31 replies
Im sure lots of people have great ideas for games. The thing is its just hard to get your idea made. Now, I'm just starting game creation but I have some ideas that id like to share but not fully I really dont want someone stealing them. Heres one of my favorite...How about a first person shooter set in the present year or maybe in the future in the USA but the problem is that what if during the civil war the south won. Imagine what you could do with that concept, you could think of anything. I sure as heck can. The only problem is how much research is going to go into it, and the creation is going to be very hard. Let me add though that the south or "rebels" are the bad ones in this game, don't think i'm a redneck or anything. Anyways it would be funny if we could add some rednecks in this story. Tell me whatcha think. Also, i know some people will take this concept personally but i'm not making this idea to hurt anyone. :)
#22
I've seen this claim before, but would like to see it carried out and defended. Just from the very narrow view, disregarding the rest of the climate at the time:
- Lincoln's election to the presidency was the immediate cause for secession
- In the election, Lincoln polled 1,866,452 popular votes, Stephen Douglas polled 1,376,957, and John Breckinridge received 849,781.
- The only reason Douglas and Breckinridge were both running was because Douglas and Jefferson Davis were unable to reconcile their differences at the 1860 Democratic Convention.
- As I was taught, the feud between Douglas's and Davis's camps wasn't protectionist tariffs, cheap homesteads or centrallized banking, it was slavery.
- Furthermore, states' rights were less important to Davis's faction than slavery. Davis wished to enact slavery in new territories by Congressional intervention, rather than letting the legislature of those states decide, and believed that Congress must assert the rights of American citizens and that when a territorial legislature failed to perform its proper functions in protecting property, Congress must do it.
Douglas's speech: "If Oregon will not enact statutes to encourage mules, I won't pass a law in Washington to force mules on them; if Oregon will not encourage longhorn cattle, I will not force cattle on them; and if Oregon will not accept slaves, I will not force slaves on her people."
==
Davis became the president of the Confederacy, while Douglas held Lincoln's hat at his inauguration. In this context, I find it hard to see the South acting in the best interest of states' rights before and when it seceded. I don't want this to become an all-out flame war, but I would like to see how slavery can be viewed as having little to do with the secession and the Civil War.
12/14/2001 (12:55 am)
"You're right. the war was only partly about slavery. In fact I think it had little to do with slavery."I've seen this claim before, but would like to see it carried out and defended. Just from the very narrow view, disregarding the rest of the climate at the time:
- Lincoln's election to the presidency was the immediate cause for secession
- In the election, Lincoln polled 1,866,452 popular votes, Stephen Douglas polled 1,376,957, and John Breckinridge received 849,781.
- The only reason Douglas and Breckinridge were both running was because Douglas and Jefferson Davis were unable to reconcile their differences at the 1860 Democratic Convention.
- As I was taught, the feud between Douglas's and Davis's camps wasn't protectionist tariffs, cheap homesteads or centrallized banking, it was slavery.
- Furthermore, states' rights were less important to Davis's faction than slavery. Davis wished to enact slavery in new territories by Congressional intervention, rather than letting the legislature of those states decide, and believed that Congress must assert the rights of American citizens and that when a territorial legislature failed to perform its proper functions in protecting property, Congress must do it.
Douglas's speech: "If Oregon will not enact statutes to encourage mules, I won't pass a law in Washington to force mules on them; if Oregon will not encourage longhorn cattle, I will not force cattle on them; and if Oregon will not accept slaves, I will not force slaves on her people."
==
Davis became the president of the Confederacy, while Douglas held Lincoln's hat at his inauguration. In this context, I find it hard to see the South acting in the best interest of states' rights before and when it seceded. I don't want this to become an all-out flame war, but I would like to see how slavery can be viewed as having little to do with the secession and the Civil War.
#23
I agree that we are inching towards a police state. If I remember the backstory of D-Ex correctly it was domestic terrorists that caused the "Police State" of D-Ex.
I also played a demo of "Fallout Tatics" and liked it (I just don't have TIME to play a game like D-Ex or Fallout as I'm spending a lot of time looking for work and learning new skills).
Actually I think the original idea of this topic would fly as well (of course I think slavery would have died out anyhow as the country further shifted from agricultural to industrial).
12/14/2001 (5:07 am)
Yacine: I agree that we are inching towards a police state. If I remember the backstory of D-Ex correctly it was domestic terrorists that caused the "Police State" of D-Ex.
I also played a demo of "Fallout Tatics" and liked it (I just don't have TIME to play a game like D-Ex or Fallout as I'm spending a lot of time looking for work and learning new skills).
Actually I think the original idea of this topic would fly as well (of course I think slavery would have died out anyhow as the country further shifted from agricultural to industrial).
#24
You are absolutely correct. I must go back on what I said. After I read your post, I went around on the net to try to find some facts to counter your argument. But, like I said, you are right.
Lincoln's election was the most immediate cause of the secession. In fact by his innaugauration, 6 states had already secedded.
The feud between Douglas and Davis was about slavery.
What astonishes me after reading some of this stuff, is that how much of the population was not adverse to slavery. Back when the constitution was written, the only Sourthener against slavery was Thomas Jefferson. Some of his writings got voted out of the text of the constitution because it was deemed to tough on slavery. In fact in 1787, they agreed (the continental congress), that a black person would represent 3/5 of a man.
Back to the main point. I still think the southern states were acting in their own best interest. Obviously, their whole economy rested upon enslaved black hands. I'm not saying it's right, but the sourthern states secedded to protect their livelihood. The problem, I guess just goes back all the way to the creation of the US. It's kinda hypocritical that the colonies were fighting against the tyranny of King George III, but when the constitution was passed, slavery was not abolished. Only five of the thirteen original states were free states.
Anyways, Howard, you are right.
12/14/2001 (9:35 am)
Howard:You are absolutely correct. I must go back on what I said. After I read your post, I went around on the net to try to find some facts to counter your argument. But, like I said, you are right.
Lincoln's election was the most immediate cause of the secession. In fact by his innaugauration, 6 states had already secedded.
The feud between Douglas and Davis was about slavery.
What astonishes me after reading some of this stuff, is that how much of the population was not adverse to slavery. Back when the constitution was written, the only Sourthener against slavery was Thomas Jefferson. Some of his writings got voted out of the text of the constitution because it was deemed to tough on slavery. In fact in 1787, they agreed (the continental congress), that a black person would represent 3/5 of a man.
Back to the main point. I still think the southern states were acting in their own best interest. Obviously, their whole economy rested upon enslaved black hands. I'm not saying it's right, but the sourthern states secedded to protect their livelihood. The problem, I guess just goes back all the way to the creation of the US. It's kinda hypocritical that the colonies were fighting against the tyranny of King George III, but when the constitution was passed, slavery was not abolished. Only five of the thirteen original states were free states.
Anyways, Howard, you are right.
#25
I'm proud of it
I fly the rebel flag
and I'm not racist just because of these.
About "The War of Northern Aggression"
All states had the right to secede(sp) from the union at any time if they felt it was in their best interests.
the states that did secede, did so in a proper fashion in accordance with the law.
the union refused to recognize the fact and wouldn't remove their troops from what was basically no longer their land. Mostly due to Lincoln's "not on my watch" attitude.
While the original succession was due to issues over slavery among other things. The war itself had little to do with slavery. It was over the basic rights of the states versus the growing power of the federal government. The founders of the constitution would have been appalled at the civil war and everything since.
Some people will say that these statements make me a racist, I am not. I abhor slavery in any form. But the fact remains the issue of slavery may have played a role in starting the war but it did not fuel the war. Even the north only used the abolishment of slavery as a tool to garner support with little thought as to actually enforcing it.
As you can see many southerners would have a problem with a game that labels them as 'evil'. especially considering the fact that we allready have to live in a country that regards us as 'backwards'.
sorry for the rambling.
though about the east coast vs. west coast vs. middle america thing. I like that idea ;)
12/24/2001 (4:57 am)
First off i'm a SouthernerI'm proud of it
I fly the rebel flag
and I'm not racist just because of these.
About "The War of Northern Aggression"
All states had the right to secede(sp) from the union at any time if they felt it was in their best interests.
the states that did secede, did so in a proper fashion in accordance with the law.
the union refused to recognize the fact and wouldn't remove their troops from what was basically no longer their land. Mostly due to Lincoln's "not on my watch" attitude.
While the original succession was due to issues over slavery among other things. The war itself had little to do with slavery. It was over the basic rights of the states versus the growing power of the federal government. The founders of the constitution would have been appalled at the civil war and everything since.
Some people will say that these statements make me a racist, I am not. I abhor slavery in any form. But the fact remains the issue of slavery may have played a role in starting the war but it did not fuel the war. Even the north only used the abolishment of slavery as a tool to garner support with little thought as to actually enforcing it.
As you can see many southerners would have a problem with a game that labels them as 'evil'. especially considering the fact that we allready have to live in a country that regards us as 'backwards'.
sorry for the rambling.
though about the east coast vs. west coast vs. middle america thing. I like that idea ;)
#26
I don't think the original concept was that southerners would be labeled as evil, but that the confederacy would be the "bad guys." You could just as easily take the opposite stance, it's simply a matter of storytelling perspective. The war's over, the union won. If that hadn't happened--if the confederacy had won--playing the underdog would be much more exciting.
12/24/2001 (10:59 am)
Quote:As you can see many southerners would have a problem with a game that labels them as 'evil'. especially considering the fact that we allready have to live in a country that regards us as 'backwards'.
I don't think the original concept was that southerners would be labeled as evil, but that the confederacy would be the "bad guys." You could just as easily take the opposite stance, it's simply a matter of storytelling perspective. The war's over, the union won. If that hadn't happened--if the confederacy had won--playing the underdog would be much more exciting.
#27
Although it still has fps roots, it gives you objectives, and sets up each mission with some sort of storyline to encourage you to advance. I was so hooked to the game, I beat it in less than a week. (If only it was longer!!) But it goes to show that a storyline in a shooter IS important. Serious Sam was good, but became the same old thing over and over.
12/24/2001 (11:48 am)
I just picked up a copy of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. And all I can say is that it gives HL and DeusX a good fight in the storyline dept. Although it still has fps roots, it gives you objectives, and sets up each mission with some sort of storyline to encourage you to advance. I was so hooked to the game, I beat it in less than a week. (If only it was longer!!) But it goes to show that a storyline in a shooter IS important. Serious Sam was good, but became the same old thing over and over.
#28
Again, I don't see this as consistent with the words actions of the Confederacy's leaders leading up to the Civil War. Jefferson Davis became the president of the Confederacy -- and his clique, not the moderates, made its political decisions -- but he split with the mainline Democratic party because it refused to enforce slavery where the state legislatures voted against it. As I interpret it, this means that to Jefferson Davis and his party, slavery was a more crucial issue than the self-governance of states.
12/24/2001 (2:21 pm)
>While the original succession was due to issues over slavery among other things. The war itself had little to do with slavery. It was over the basic rights of the states versus the growing power of the federal government. The founders of the constitution would have been appalled at the civil war and everything since. Again, I don't see this as consistent with the words actions of the Confederacy's leaders leading up to the Civil War. Jefferson Davis became the president of the Confederacy -- and his clique, not the moderates, made its political decisions -- but he split with the mainline Democratic party because it refused to enforce slavery where the state legislatures voted against it. As I interpret it, this means that to Jefferson Davis and his party, slavery was a more crucial issue than the self-governance of states.
#29
He has a series about 'if the south won the civil war'
Including a follow on novel where during WW1 the North allies with Germany and invades the south - how's that for a touchy subject?
And, even more interesting in my opinion, one where aliens invade during WW2. where the aliens have basically the equivalent of our modern battle tanks and jets, but limited numbers and supply, and humanity has to fight it out against them.
As far as controversial - there are games about the civil war - but not about its outcome - so I can sympathize with folks concerns about what the reaction would be.
All that being said - I think alternative history is an interesting game concept - but it may have limited appeal.
I loved the setting of 'Crimson Skies' and I thought the game was really fun. although a little short. Its basically an action flight sim game set in an alternative history 1930's.
But i don't think the sales were that good.
12/26/2001 (8:44 pm)
If you want good info on alternative history settings read some Harry Turtledove books. (although of course I doubt you could get licensing, but you never know)He has a series about 'if the south won the civil war'
Including a follow on novel where during WW1 the North allies with Germany and invades the south - how's that for a touchy subject?
And, even more interesting in my opinion, one where aliens invade during WW2. where the aliens have basically the equivalent of our modern battle tanks and jets, but limited numbers and supply, and humanity has to fight it out against them.
As far as controversial - there are games about the civil war - but not about its outcome - so I can sympathize with folks concerns about what the reaction would be.
All that being said - I think alternative history is an interesting game concept - but it may have limited appeal.
I loved the setting of 'Crimson Skies' and I thought the game was really fun. although a little short. Its basically an action flight sim game set in an alternative history 1930's.
But i don't think the sales were that good.
#30
together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because
the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not eitherto save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I
forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union" The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
theres a moral stand, eh?
"The Republican controlled Congress passed
01/30/2002 (3:54 pm)
Lincoln on Slavery: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remaintogether there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because
the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not eitherto save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I
forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union" The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
theres a moral stand, eh?
"The Republican controlled Congress passed
#31
I guess this line kind of sums up why there's a bunch of boring crap:
Cs was nothing new. Took quake and made you die quicker. Nothing new at all. People praised it (I still do'nt see why) and well, many people wanted to cash in on it.
As Scott said, many of the projects here are going in the same genre but are making sure to be different from recent crap we've seen released. In fact, we're trying not to release most of the specific details that are unique because we know someone would "borrow" them.
So, don't worry about the same ol' stuff being produced with the independant groups here. The people with the "like that one game but better" ideas aren't going to follow through and finish.
The unique ideas are what will be finished because the people behind it want to get it out to the public, not because they are looking for quick cash... well not from what I've seen.
The genre is old if you go the q3/UT route of guns + people + internet = game kind of formula... but it's got a ways to grow before we can say it's a dead genre.
01/30/2002 (6:08 pm)
Yeah, the genre is tired but that's only because many of the games are boring.I guess this line kind of sums up why there's a bunch of boring crap:
Quote: For example when Counter Strike came out it's gameplay was a lot different because it slowed down gameplay and implemented a different organization of team structure
Cs was nothing new. Took quake and made you die quicker. Nothing new at all. People praised it (I still do'nt see why) and well, many people wanted to cash in on it.
As Scott said, many of the projects here are going in the same genre but are making sure to be different from recent crap we've seen released. In fact, we're trying not to release most of the specific details that are unique because we know someone would "borrow" them.
So, don't worry about the same ol' stuff being produced with the independant groups here. The people with the "like that one game but better" ideas aren't going to follow through and finish.
The unique ideas are what will be finished because the people behind it want to get it out to the public, not because they are looking for quick cash... well not from what I've seen.
The genre is old if you go the q3/UT route of guns + people + internet = game kind of formula... but it's got a ways to grow before we can say it's a dead genre.
Torque Owner Yacine Salmi
Sorry about that. Please not that I've never actually finished the game. i' must have started over a dozen times, gotten sidetracked by school and homework, and having to restart because I realized I didn't want to follow a certain path of the story line. currently I just blew up Agent Navarre with a LAW =).
Anyways, there are three endings. There is a fourth ending which you can only see with a cheat. If you're curious, please peruse the www.planetdeusex.com website.
James:
you managed to mispell my name twice in one try. That's ok, I'm not mad =). You're right, the US looks very much like a police state. Sadly, I think Warren Spector and co were a little optimistic to think that it would take that long, seeing the current legislations being passed.
For your game, have you looked at the Fallout series. it kinda sounds like your idea. Although Fallout is more of an rpg.
Nick:
You're right. the war was only partly about slavery. In fact I think it had little to do with slavery. You're also right that there shouldn't be a good vs bad, however, I don't agree with that the north was about creating more of a country.
The fact is the south did nothing wrong when they secceded. The followed the right procedures to leave the Union, a rigth given to each state if it believes that it would be better off without the Union. It's up to the citizens of the state first. It may not seem like it anymore, but the US is called the United States, not America. The whole reason behing the creation of the US, is that they did not want some central authority telling them how to live their lives.
You are first a citizen of a state, then a citizen of the US. It's kinda like the European Union. You are first a french, a brit, a spaniard, then a european.
Anyways, the Union violated the southern's states right to self-governance by invading them. It's wasn't a civil war. It was an attack on another country. Lincoln was one of the many presidents who violated the constitution. States didn't need to have allegiances. People just wanted to be left alone and wanted to trade freely with others.
I think why the US was created originally, is that so the states could fight to protect their freedoms together against future aggressions.
Sadly, while you believe that the "civil war" helped form a more solid country, I think it just made Southerners more angry at the North. Nobody likes to be told what to do.
Anyways, I believe I strayed enough off topic again. I think your main argument is correct. If you do a civil war game, you really should try to focus on more than one aspect of the situation back then.
You know what. I once had an idea of game focusing on the slavery issue, but I don't think the world is ready for it yet. I don't know how politically correct it would be. Anyone want to hear?
Lastly, I think I should add that I think slavery was and still is wrong. I am a strong believer that noone but yourself should have any control over your own life.
Yacine