Your ideal game ideas.

[LindyAF]

I was playing KOTOR and I was thinking - 1) What if Revan knew the whole time and 2) I wish I could change my companion's alignments more.

So I was thinking, like a BioWare-style RPG, where you've got a team of companions, set in Star Wars. Except (initially) unbeknownst to the (Republic-aligned) companions, the player character is actually a Sith Lord, a rival of the main villain. You're trying to stop him from locating and securing an artifact of ultimate power. The Republic is planning on destroying it, but you're secretly hoping to take it for yourself.

In between the standard missions, your character is trying to corrupt the their companions towards the dark side - but at the same time, they can also get more concerned and suspicious, and if you play it wrong, they'll find out and you'll either be forced to kill them or be killed by them, depending on circumstances. Around companions you've made more comfortable with the dark side, you can use more of your Sith powers, build your power base, and take steps toward seizing the artifact for yourself, but around characters you've made more suspicious you'll have to dial it back. As the game goes on, you'll also start getting bonus objectives and optional side missions that undermine or co-opt other elements of the republic.

In the Bad End, you fail to sufficiently turn enough characters and are forced to accept the gratitude of the Republic for destroying the artifact.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

my game would probably be a mix of A dynamic rpg and a fighter what I'm thinking is a mix of the dynamic hub world of Yakuza: enter the dragon + UFC sports + Street Fighter + the dynamic character changing mechanics of read dead redemption 2.

Imagine being able to create a fighter from scratch who's look and stats change on decisions you make such as diet, fighting style, personality, gear ect. When you aren't participating in tournaments, prize fights or sparing, you can do stuff like hit the casino's play arcade games and even fight street crime. almost like a pen and paper RPG fighter.

 

[Zachowon]

A RPG like Cyberpunk, but Diesel/Deco punk

 

[Aaron Fox]

The Rise of Legends that we never got.

Seriously, I've heard that Rise of Legends was severely gimmped before it was shipped out and there were a lot more factions and a longer campaign planned.


Sadly the publisher went and gimmped it. It also made magic and tech not superior to each other.

Another one is a fusion between Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts (specifically its engine) and the game Enigma: Rising Tide (basically Imperial Germany crushed the Grand Fleet at Jutland, causing WW1 to end in 1916, the Royal Navy is now in exile working with the Japanese, and Germany now controls Europe)...




You play as a newly trained officer of the USN, IJN/RNE, or Imperial German Navy and start out on escort corvettes/gunboats, and play across numerous missions (and getting better ships along the way) as you find yourself in a conspiracy (or, in the case of the IJN/RNE, be the conspiracy ) to bring the US and Germany into open conflict...

 

[Bassoe]

A Halo clone FPS set in the bucolic countryside of seventies england in the Whoniverse. The Doctor is unavoidably detained light-years and centuries away and awhen when an alien invasion strikes and you, Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, have to save the world, armed with only your trusty pistol, stiff british upper lip and every single alien weapon UNIT ever confiscated by shooting them a lot. There's also an easter egg/overpowered cheat code that lets you play as your future self.

Not sure which enemy to use.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Not a Warhammer 40K expert so I think that makes me perfectly capable of proposing a Warhammer 40K game.

An WH40K set RPG style game that's party based, with your main character being a Commissar. I'm thinking it'll be a party based game kind of like KOTOR or Dragon Age but the game will have an isometric view for the most part. I'd like combat to be in the vein of something like X-Com or Final Fantasy Tactics so it'll be turn based and likely off of some sort of initiative. It'll have a big and thick companion, morality and loyalty mechanic.

The basic idea is the main character is a veteran and senior level Commissar returning from some sort of successful campaign against Xenos scum or whatnot and he's part of a large force that is then dispatched to a very important and built up world that is under rebellion. So the opening scene will have the Commissar helping lead an assault on the Governors palace and battling their way through the traitorous local PDF's and palace guards or whatever nonsense and executing the Governor and after that engaging in the various thick moral and world affecting choices.

For a main basic morality meter, it'll be between a metaphorical Radical and Puritan (of course) even though he's not an inquisitor, the game will be kind of treating him as a Diet Version of one. The Radical Faction will be represented by an Ordos Xenos Inquisitor (perhaps one who directed the campaign prior to this game) such as a Helynna Valeria type who wants to seek out xenos technology and use it towards their own ends. The Puritan Faction can be represented by a Canoness of a Minor Militant Sisters of Battle Order or a Preceptor or Commander level type so we can avoid some sort of Inquisitor v. Inquisitor type of schism trope.

Plus the idea is that both sides are still working together. The primary focus of the story will be rebuilding a 'Schola Progenium' on the world with secondary missions including establishing a new government, purging the hive cities and local bureaucracy of traitorism and wrong loyalties, and securing the planet against future xenos threats (it can be a border world somewhere). There'll be a lot of moral choices involved here.

Such as when dealing with Hive Ciites, you could support the Puritans by empowering the Adeptus Arbiters/PDF's/Enforcers in securing the Hive Undercities or gangs, or the Radicals in setting up networks of informants and scouts and guides and controlling the Hive Gangs from within instead of externally.

You can help establish a new Planetary Government. Maybe a Priest was a member of the Royal Family and led the Faiths Militant in rebellion against his own family and supported your initial assault on the Palace. The radical option would be placing a more independent leader in charge of the family of another noble family that will be beholden to the Ordos Xenos inquisition.

Maybe there's a threat of Dark Eldar pirates from the Webway. The Puritans want to find them, burn them and cleanse their Webway hovel and slaughter those that work with them. The Radicals want to find them, burn them and cleanse their Webway hovel and slaughter those that work with them.... but keep the Webway hovel for themselves and extract secrets from any Dark Eldar captives and see if they really are too kinky for torture.

The main narrative is establishing a new Schola Progenium. Since the Commissar is an Orphan who was raised as an Orphan, as was both the Radicla Inquisitor and Puritan Canoness, themes of the adopted family can infuse itself into the story. All three factions want to create a proud new Schola and as Commissar it'll be your main goal to oversee it, marshaling resources and personnel to make it successful and culminate in electing one of your Companions to lead the new Schola under your supervision.

I'd like the Companions to be a diverse group of course. Maybe the aforementioned Priest who led the Uprising against his own family. A Gun Servitor that is found in the palace wreckage that is more then just a lobotomized drone. A Squat mutant whose an ImpGuard veteran that loathes xenos scum since she's suffered the depredations of the Tyranids wiping out her civilization and Dark Eldar pirates haranguing the refugees. A noble who has no future legacy because she didn't inherit the Navigation genes from her family line. A master assassin who works for one of the Hive gangs. Some badass Arbiter who speaks softly and carries a big maul. Maybe like a dozen companions max. Plus you can get distinct ImpGuard companions. A Skitarii Ranger perhaps, or an Inquisitorial Stormtrooper. A gearheaded Tank Commander from Tallarn or a demolitions specialist from Krieg or a scathingly sarcastic and stereotypical Ratling sniper. Do the same with Harakoni or Catachan or what have you etc.

Not sure if it'd be that likely to have actual Xenos companions. Seems unlikely to be honest. He's a Commissar doing special missions, not an Inquisitor who can do what they want for the most part. There might be potential for a Jokaero Smith type, or maaaaybe an Asuryani Outcast, maybe one who previously lived among the Exodite Eldar, but I'd have to think of an appropriate storyline for one to be hanging around on this world.

The more you work with them or through them, that can affect not only their outcomes and that of the planet, but also the Radical or Puritan balance and also because one of them will be overseeing your Schola (if appropriate) and imparting a unique character upon it. Putting a Krieger or Tallarn vet would make it very strong of the Imperial Creed and martial virtues, a Priest would make it more Ecclessiarch sympathetic but less martial because of the Priests background, a Squat or Ratling would make it more strangely more diverse.

And obviously along with leveling up yourself and your companions, you'll get to choose cool wargear and everything. And you can both guide and see how dynamic the ending fates for each of the companions would turn out to be across various playthroughs.

Ultimately the ending for the character would imply they would become the leader of the Schola themselves regardless of what faction they choose, but there can be a hidden narrative that builds up to the climax at the very end. The Gun Servitor found from the very beginning can be found to be possessed by an ancient 'Machine Spirit' and remembers a time many millenia before the Inquisition and the Ecclesiarchy and subtly try and guide the protaganist astray discovering teachings and lessons contrary to the Imperium and Imperial Creed such as the idea of Imperial Atheism and the like. While the Machine Spirit isn't of Chaos itself, it's teachings are clearly contrary to it. The propagandist will eventually have to confront this 'Machine Spirit' and either bring it to the attention of the Ordos Xenos Inquisitor, or the Canoness or deal with it himself. The Xenos Inquisitor will toss the curious creature into a vault for further study and award the Commissar into becoming an Acolyte in her retinue, both to keep him away from the Church and to keep an eye on him for better or worse. The Sisters will destroy the abomination and then submit you to the Ordos Hereticus... but as a potential valuable member of one of their Inquisitor retinues.

Or he can destroy the Machine Spirit himself and choose to lead the Schola as originally intended and make a School that will thrive in its service to the Imperium. Or he can keep it a secret and lock the Machine Spirit away... while gleaning his own secrets from it. A path that can lead to great reward for himself and the Imperium potentially, but far more likely just great risk as such a secret getting revealed would likely have him terminated.

The final choice is likely the most wrong choice. The prior three choices of having the AlienHunter, the Canoness or yourself handle it might also be determinative not just on the Puritan/Radical spectrum but ones companions as well and how much trust and loyalty they have in you. The final choice would require hiding it from all of your companions, that adopted family you've been cultivating through the entire game.

The story does contravene having a crapsack/grimdark ending but I feel that's more of the general flavor and atmosphere as well, not just in having perpetual downer endings. I also kinda want to avoid the Space Marines and strict Chaos storylines because that's such a focus on Warhammer 40K already. The idea of dealing with normal Human Imperial problems seems more compelling and it can still be done on an epic planetary scale. The diversity is less meant to be for wokism and more that games are more interesting with lots of replayability and different play experiences. Each companion can be fairly different from the others and thus lead to different builds, synergies and outcomes.

 

[bintananth]

I'd like to see one where starship combat is actually realistic.

Not the "pew, pew, pew, point and shoot KABOOM!" such games currently present but rather the "Ok, that's where it was X amount of time ago. Were will it be when our lightspeed shots arrive?" and "Can our STL weapons breach their lightspeed defenses?" game of cat-and-mouse at very long ranges which will probably be the norm in the future.

 

[LindyAF]

IMO an inquisitor might make a lot more sense for a 40K Bioware style RPG, although the storyline works with a Commissar.

The diversity is less meant to be for wokism and more that games are more interesting with lots of replayability and different play experiences. Each companion can be fairly different from the others and thus lead to different builds, synergies and outcomes.

IMO avoiding alien companions avoids 40K-revelant wokism, since if you don't have any alien companions than you can go full Imperial righteous hatred of xenos. Even the Radical Inquisitor perspective wrt aliens (and chaos) is less "we should work with them" and more "we should pull them apart to figure out how they tick."

 

[Husky_Khan]

IMO an inquisitor might make a lot more sense for a 40K Bioware style RPG, although the storyline works with a Commissar.

Yeah for a long time I thought an Inquisitor would be a pretty awesome concept for a proper Western RPG but being a Commissar confined to a single planet, the story I think would feel more grounded and compelling because you are still 'developing' your character like an origin story. And being an Inquisitor is something that could still be aspiring to.

But yes, the Companions would work almost like an Inquisitors Retinue in regards to this storyline except it's a Commissar whose authority isn't quite as absolute.

Which is another brainbug that is kind of annoying that you see in games and the like. Whether your a Grey Warden or badass Jedi, somehow your still beholden to dumbass randoms and their random problems and can't just beat them to death as an example. It would make just as little sense if your an Inquisitor as well... but if your "just" a Commissar... the storylines can be more grounded.

 

[LindyAF]

An interrogator in 40k is an inquisitor’s lieutenant who is an inquisitor-in-training, and often acts fault independently, forming their own retinue etc. but as not yet a full inquisitor they don’t have inquisitorial authority but rather derive it from their boss.

This would fit well for someone who acts like an inquisitor but doesn’t have the authority of one. But on the other hand an interrogators role is typically more inquisitive than constructive, and unlike a senior commissar an interrogator has a boss who might actually be interested in what they’re doing.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I'd like to see one where starship combat is actually realistic.

Not the "pew, pew, pew, point and shoot KABOOM!" such games currently present but rather the "Ok, that's where it was X amount of time ago. Were will it be when our lightspeed shots arrive?" and "Can our STL weapons breach their lightspeed defenses?" game of cat-and-mouse at very long ranges which will probably be the norm in the future.

Actually, it would be more likely that everything would be within a light-second for space combat. Even then, if you want realistic space combat, then Children of a Dead Earth is as real as its going to get for you.

 

[LindyAF]

Another way to put anti-wokism into a game like that would be to have a “diverse” (in the games context) companion... and then they’re the one that betrays you.

Imagine if you had a game with an optional companion that’s dubious in the game’s context (maybe like Legion, from ME or an Exiled Eldar in @Husky_Khan’s 40K idea ) who there are hints about but they normally don’t do anything overtly untoward. Unless you do their loyalty mission, max out their loyalty meter (or near to) by taking their side in every conflict with companions and being as nice as you can be to them, in which case the game decides that they’ve earned your trust. This would be intentionally difficult so most players don’t do it on their first pkaythrough, but it all turns out well so the players are inclined to take their side in subsequent ones. But if they do earn your trust, they betray you during an attack by the Dak Eldar or the Geth or whoever, killing one or more of your companions and dramatically ramping up the difficulty of a mission or mission chain. And the implication is that even if they didn’t betray you, they’re still a spy, just waiting for the moment to strike.

 

[Bassoe]

Another way to put anti-wokism into a game like that would be to have a “diverse” (in the games context) companion... and then they’re the one that betrays you.

Imagine if you had a game with an optional companion that’s dubious in the game’s context (maybe like Legion, from ME or an Exiled Eldar in @Husky_Khan’s 40K idea ) who there are hints about but they normally don’t do anything overtly untoward. Unless you do their loyalty mission, max out their loyalty meter (or near to) by taking their side in every conflict with companions and being as nice as you can be to them, in which case the game decides that they’ve earned your trust. This would be intentionally difficult so most players don’t do it on their first pkaythrough, but it all turns out well so the players are inclined to take their side in subsequent ones. But if they do earn your trust, they betray you during an attack by the Dak Eldar or the Geth or whoever, killing one or more of your companions and dramatically ramping up the difficulty of a mission or mission chain. And the implication is that even if they didn’t betray you, they’re still a spy, just waiting for the moment to strike.

I am now driving myself crazy trying to remember the book that did this. A jungle opera written during the cold war, swapping between protagonist viewpoints. People had found fragments of some impossible room-temperature-superconductor crystal washing down a river and sent a team to try to find the source in unexplored jungle before the rival soviet team could do so. One of the teammates was a classic obnoxious Girlboss™ First Women In Such An Expedition™ archetype charecter and she was the expedition's hidden mole the entire time and when you finally found out, suddenly all the scenes narrated by her about being suspected by other members of the expedition had an entirely different light.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Another way to put anti-wokism into a game like that would be to have a “diverse” (in the games context) companion... and then they’re the one that betrays you.

Imagine if you had a game with an optional companion that’s dubious in the game’s context (maybe like Legion, from ME or an Exiled Eldar in @Husky_Khan’s 40K idea ) who there are hints about but they normally don’t do anything overtly untoward. Unless you do their loyalty mission, max out their loyalty meter (or near to) by taking their side in every conflict with companions and being as nice as you can be to them, in which case the game decides that they’ve earned your trust. This would be intentionally difficult so most players don’t do it on their first pkaythrough, but it all turns out well so the players are inclined to take their side in subsequent ones. But if they do earn your trust, they betray you during an attack by the Dak Eldar or the Geth or whoever, killing one or more of your companions and dramatically ramping up the difficulty of a mission or mission chain. And the implication is that even if they didn’t betray you, they’re still a spy, just waiting for the moment to strike.

I think a more dynamic concept would be to have it... well I guess more dynamic for that replayability factor.

So lets say we have some Eldar Outcast character and your doing your Radical run. Everytime you help the Eldar or vice versa, you get those Radical points, Alienhunter Inquisitor Helynna Valeria likes you more and then you reach some mini-climax with that companion. If you are kinda cold or lukewarm on the companion, the Eldar Outcast betrays you and it's likely you either have to kill them and yeah... more Radical reputation.

But if you have a good relationship with the Outcast, they betray you and might be able to catch them and then kill them or prevent them from stealing or safeguarding whatever Eldar tech or artifact there's mutual interest in or whatever. Your overall rep doesn't suffer depending on the outcome. If you kill them, good job. If you fail, then there's a hit even from the Alienhunter Inquisitor along the lines of (You let a Xenos outwit you or you trusted one too much? -50 points!). The radical Inquisitor and others will compliment you on using the Aeldari and then eliminated them when they proved to be working contrary to the Imperium's interest.

If you have an amazing relationship with them.... they still betray you and you eat that but there's a nice twist. Since you have a perfect relationship with them, the Eldar still confronts you (that trust is still there) even though the Eldar MacGuffin is secure and you won't convince the Eldar to not "betray" you but instead the Eldar will be diet smug. "Humans shouldn't have this technology. Your too primitive for it. I'm doing you a favor etc etc etc" And if you bring up the idea of trust or friendship or something it can take another twist. "I trust you as much as I can trust one who doesn't follow the Path of Asuryan" and "You are a worthy ally... a worthy Mon'keigh ally. You being anything more then being a Mon'keigh is as likely to be successful as me abandoning the Path of Asuryan. You are a Mon'keigh. I am Aeldari. That is how the universeshould be, or else there would be 'Chaos.' I'm doing what is best for the Aeldari. You should do what's best for your Imperium and your people and in this case they are one and the same as they usually are." or some shit. So he basically gives you a bit of reinforcement of Imperial doctrine.

You can let him go... or you can still attempt to kill him but even if you succeed, you still get the Reputation hit ("So the Eldar outwitted you, and after the damage was done he allowed you to kill him? Mediocre." -50 Rep hit). If you let the knife eared scum live, maybe they'll be like "I hope to see you again before your short life ends," or some friendly smug sincerity before they depart (and maybe give you some trinket or bit of kit so it's not a complete wash) so you can get that juicy sequel bait.

And after that companion quest ends, the player can learn an important lesson about even the "nice" Xenos scum.

 

[LindyAF]

I think a more dynamic concept would be to have it... well I guess more dynamic for that replayability factor.

So lets say we have some Eldar Outcast character and your doing your Radical run. Everytime you help the Eldar or vice versa, you get those Radical points, Alienhunter Inquisitor Helynna Valeria likes you more and then you reach some mini-climax with that companion. If you are kinda cold or lukewarm on the companion, the Eldar Outcast betrays you and it's likely you either have to kill them and yeah... more Radical reputation.

But if you have a good relationship with the Outcast, they betray you and might be able to catch them and then kill them or prevent them from stealing or safeguarding whatever Eldar tech or artifact there's mutual interest in or whatever. Your overall rep doesn't suffer depending on the outcome. If you kill them, good job. If you fail, then there's a hit even from the Alienhunter Inquisitor along the lines of (You let a Xenos outwit you or you trusted one too much? -50 points!). The radical Inquisitor and others will compliment you on using the Aeldari and then eliminated them when they proved to be working contrary to the Imperium's interest.

Hmmm, minor quibble with this is that as a matter of game design a "failure" here wouldn't really be something for most players, because for most players, if success is something that's reasonably possible they're just going to reload and get it. I know if I see "Failure -50 Reputation" I'm just going back to my save and not being a scrub the next time around. In Dragon Age Origins I accidentally missed out on half of a mission because I didn't realize I was intended to lose and so when the situation started to look unwinnable I just kept reloading before I ran out of health (which I thought would just result in the game over screen).

In this idea we can avoid this with their overall relationship with the traitor by having it be set earlier. I feel like a player should have to go one mission back in order to avoid a perfect relationship, if they want to do that, but in terms of a broader change it should be pretty unclear and unviable to just reload, unless they want to go all the way back to when they met the companion, at which point why not just finish the game and restart?

My idea kind of forces 2-3 replays and that's all you get out of it, but I feel like that's... mostly fine for one companion's storyline. One issue with my idea though would be that my intent would be for in the most common first-playthrough scenario (neither maxxed opinion or catching the traitor / not taking them in the first place) they betray you less effectively in a sequel, which I think is a nice hook, but has the issue that just the implication that your character will get betrayed in the future is a lot less compelling in a stand alone game, which yours avoids neatly.

Either would be cool...

I do feel like the most valuable thing to a player in this sort of game is their companions so having the punishment for trusting the traitor completely be a companion death is one of the only things a player can't just shrug off and would feel super significant... but on the other hand it's a very heavy handed tool so it should only be used if the traitor storyline is intended to be a huge deal.

 

[Husky_Khan]

"Players will optimize the fun out of a game if given the opportunity." - Clausewitz (or somebody)

 

[LindyAF]

I'm a simple man, if a video game has a number in it I try to make it big.

I do feel like if a video game has failure = you die in most of it, then having a section where failure = progression (with a cost) can be a game design issue. If failure = progression (with a cost), then it should be throughout the game.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Let's see:

1) Pokemon MMO. Because dammit, that setting is practically ready made for an MMO, it would be fun, and Nintendo's refusal to do so just offends the businessman in me.

2) A post Destroy ending ME open world game. Galactic civilization is basically collapsed as all the Relays went poof and most everything else government wise is wrecked. You are a dude with a ship and basically get to go around doing whatever you want. Whether that is piracy or trying to rebuild the Council or whatever. No grand story lines unless you actively try and create one (i.e. reestablishing galactic civilization).

3) Some decent 40k games. I mean a proper Space Marine shooter would be grand, but to date every attempt has been absolute crap. An Assassin game would also be epic and fairly easy to do, pick Vindicare, Eversor, Callidus, or Culuxes at the start as your character path and then basically have it be a stealth game kind along the lines of Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, or stealth run Dishonored. Maybe have Eversor be a New Game+ option where you run a selection of the same missions from the other three campaigns but with no need for stealth, just as the brutal juggernaut.

 

[bintananth]

I do feel like if a video game has failure = you die in most of it, then having a section where failure = progression (with a cost) can be a game design issue. If failure = progression (with a cost), then it should be throughout the game.

You'd enjoy nethack.

alt.org - NetHack top deaths

alt.org

#14 on that list is "ascended" (i.e: you won) and most of those were done by a small number of players who are very good and don't make mistakes.

EDIT: some of the unique ones on the list (like petrified by a keystone kop) required effort and weren't accidents.

 

[Laskar]

Hmmm, minor quibble with this is that as a matter of game design a "failure" here wouldn't really be something for most players, because for most players, if success is something that's reasonably possible they're just going to reload and get it. I know if I see "Failure -50 Reputation" I'm just going back to my save and not being a scrub the next time around. In Dragon Age Origins I accidentally missed out on half of a mission because I didn't realize I was intended to lose and so when the situation started to look unwinnable I just kept reloading before I ran out of health (which I thought would just result in the game over screen).

In this idea we can avoid this with their overall relationship with the traitor by having it be set earlier. I feel like a player should have to go one mission back in order to avoid a perfect relationship, if they want to do that, but in terms of a broader change it should be pretty unclear and unviable to just reload, unless they want to go all the way back to when they met the companion, at which point why not just finish the game and restart?

My idea kind of forces 2-3 replays and that's all you get out of it, but I feel like that's... mostly fine for one companion's storyline. One issue with my idea though would be that my intent would be for in the most common first-playthrough scenario (neither maxxed opinion or catching the traitor / not taking them in the first place) they betray you less effectively in a sequel, which I think is a nice hook, but has the issue that just the implication that your character will get betrayed in the future is a lot less compelling in a stand alone game, which yours avoids neatly.

Either would be cool...

I do feel like the most valuable thing to a player in this sort of game is their companions so having the punishment for trusting the traitor completely be a companion death is one of the only things a player can't just shrug off and would feel super significant... but on the other hand it's a very heavy handed tool so it should only be used if the traitor storyline is intended to be a huge deal.

Granted, I haven't played many RPGs, but this reads like a subversion of standard companion design. In the RPGs I've played, the only difference between a paladin who has sworn an oath to complete your mission and a thug who was kicked out of the thieves guild for grand scumbaggery and not paying his dues is... flavor text. They act the same. They stick with you no matter the danger, until you finish the mission. You can always trust that companion to be there no matter what he says.

The biggest subversion I can think of is Wrex in the first Mass Effect game, who can turn on you if you rush through the game and not do his loyalty mission. Mass Effect 2 also has the option of companions being taken out of the game, but that's true for everybody. The crewmates who were there when you took down Sovereign are just as loyal or disloyal as the psychotic lab experiment with a hateboner for your sponsor organization.

Oh, yeah, Original War did it too. That was pretty neat.

A game where you have to think about your companions' motives in order to keep them loyal would be pretty good, especially if there are curveballs thrown at you.

One companion is your standard RPG companion. He stays with you no matter what, and he will be extra loyal if you do his mission. Probably should be a few of these. Just so that the game isn't full of bastards.

Another companion is a Paladin, and though he is sworn to slay the dark lord, he will leave you if you cross too many lines and fail the come-to-Jesus moment.

A third companion is a thief who vanishes into the shadows whenever the fighting in a mission gets too intense. As the game goes on, he gets second thoughts about the quest, and disappears with a lot of loot. The only way to keep his loyalty is to betray him and hold blackmail over his head.

A fourth companion is a swordsman from a desert tribe who swears he will fight the Dark Lord if you free his tribe from bondage, but he also often quotes that "Me against my brother, me and my brother against the outsider" phrase. If you don't complete that sidequest, he abandons you... but he also abandons you if you free his tribe. He got what he wanted, and if you push him to honor his word, the whole clan will attack you. The only way to keep him is if you do his loyalty mission and fail, so that he swears revenge for his lost kin.

The fifth companion is a sorceress who sees the world in power dynamics. This is a poor justification for the fact that she is power-thirsty. She will betray you to become the Dark Lord's apprentice. You need to talk her out of her worldview *and* shield her from a lot of temptation to keep her loyalty.