1. I dunno...a sword vs. someone with a BFG might be kind of fun.
However, they''d have to be balanced. Say, a BFG takes a long
time to aim and the spot you''re aiming at can''t be changed until
it fires. That way, the guy with the sword has to be quick so he
can run away or attack the BFG person. Balance is the key here.

2. Yes, however it is VERY hard to implement it all correctly.
Die Hard Trilogy was great fun to play. So were Rebel Assault 1
and 2, Shadows of the Empire and the Star Wars Arcade Game(the
new 3d one, not the kickass vector gfx one). I also believe
there were some alternate levels in the Crash Bandicoot and
Donkey Kong Country games. It''s all about the transition from
one mode to another, I suppose. It needs to flow correctly.

3. Unless there are a lot of sprites and you''re not going for a
cinematic feel(say, certain angles in different rooms) cameras
should always be configurable.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

Another example (and this is showing my age) is Super Mario 3. It was a great game and mainly a side scroller but there was a lot of variation. You had sky levels, swimming and those ships at the end of a world that forced you to continue moving. In between levels, you had goofy little games that rewarded you with power-ups.

Rather than trying to blend several different genres, how about taking one genre and really extending what can be done with it? Let''s say you have a fighting game where you jump out of a plane on one level and you and your opponent are spin kickin'' in mid-air as you''re falling. You''re opponent has the parachute and you don''t. If you ease up on him for too long, he''ll just open the parachute so you gotta kick is a$$ fast until he''s unconscious so you can take his chute.

That''s interesting... having various interfaces (each of which have already been done) isn''t.

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

I agree with the idea of #2, but only if you''re careful. If people are going out and buying a fighing game, they don''t want to have to drive to the tournament arena.

However, in certain circumstances - for example, movie spinoffs, or dedicated single-player games - it could be brilliant. As long as the player is expecting the game to change from time to time, then there''s no problem. Having it as an RTS for the entire game, and then right at the end turning it into an FPS would not be considered fair play.

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

You seem to think that more is always better. "Every item", "every type of gameplay", "more views". Well, simply having more will not improve an already flawed game, and adding too much to game will actually make it worse. You want to do like Goldilocks and find what''s "just right" for your game.

Empire Earth sort of went for the "every item" point. For those who havn''t seen it, Empier Earth was a strategy game where you could advance through many ages of human advancements, from cavman to space explorer. The thing that kept this game from being totally unbalanced I think was the gradual process.

I have to admit, the thought of Every Item sounds kind of weird though. I mean, what are the boundaries you are talking about. Like every item that youve seen in common games, or like everything you could possibly think of?

An item system needs to be structured, otherwise you end up with a whole lot of redundant and totally useless items, which are basically just going to be content which takes up hard drive space when installing the game, and will be ignored by the player anyway.