I've only glanced over this thread so far, but I've got a fairly simple idea for a game about argument. I don't think I'd ever actually make it, but I might as well throw it out here for discussion's sake.
So, the game would revolve around 'viewpoints,' which would be sort of like a hexadecimal index of the player's ideology. Instead of having a simple good/bad structure, each player would have three pillars to their view (those views being Red, Green and Blue
). These would not be exclusive from each other either.
A good/bad structure indicates that when the good variable increases, the bad decreases; essentially leaving any given player with the ability to only carry a single view at any time. In an RGB system, players could believe in only red, or only red and blue, or all three colors at once, or even nothing at all. The views are not mutually exclusive.
Now, the arguments you could use would reflect your views. Say if you believed only in green (0x00FF00), you could use these arguments
-Green is true (green++)
-Red is false (red--)
-Blue is false (blue--)
Whereas is you believed in everything (0xFFFFFF), you could use only these:
-Green is true
-Red is true
-Blue is true
And believing in nothing (0x000000) would give you
-Green is false
-Red is false
-Blue is false
The game would be multiplayer, with a battle system similar to a turn-based rpg. You'd be set in a room with a certain number of other people, and every round you'd choose a player to set an argument against and an argument to set against them. Once you 'fire' the argument at them, their views would be affected accordingly. You could even fire an argument at yourself if you felt the need.
Now, at a certain point in the round, the attacks evolve a step. Players are allowed to combine multiple attacks into one using a 'because' clause.
Say I believe 0xFF0000 giving me the attacks
red is true, green is false, and
blue is false. I can now combine two of these attacks into one:
________ because ________
Red is true because
green is false.
These would be more effective, as they have the ability to change multiple view of other players at once. However, they could be defended against. If someone used a
R is T because B is F on me, I could attack the base of that argument:
B is F by a counter argument:
B is T (if I can use that argument).
Later on in the game, perhaps the attack could evolve even more to allow for three slots (_____ because _______ & _______
or ______ & ______ because ______) or perhaps counter arguments could evolve to have two slots. The possibilities really start explode from there.
I guess winners could be determined by who makes the most conversions (changing a player's stats so that their argument switches from
X is T to
X is F) over a given amount of turns.
Thoughts? Questions? Strongly worded complaints?
Developer
