I'd like to see Rockstar's take on an Indy game. Not an Indy-style game, an actual Indy game."Grand Theft Treasure", perhaps :up:

They might as well just take GTA IV.
Put Indy instead of Niko.
And release it. :p

I think there's a lot about Red Dead Redemption's layout that could be adapted nicely to an Indy game. :up:

You could change guns from a S&W .45 to a Browning 9mm to a Webley... pick up an MP40. :gun:

Slowly upgrade your whip skills...:whip:

And have a great, overarcing adventure with freedom to do lots of side quests.

Hey there, gang. I've taken the liberty to branch off your posts there into a dedicated thread on this idea.

Could there possibly be an Indiana Jones game on the model of the output of Rockstar Games (Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire, etc.)?

The foremost problem here is obvious: scope. Indiana Jones depends on a rather large world, with a lot of cultures involved in it. Unless they were to narrow in on a single culture or artifact focus, there would either need to be travel involved from one map to another, or a variant on Red Dead Redemption's grand panorama of the entire West in a single map. Now, there was the sequel to EA's The Godfather sandbox game, which apparently took place in New York, Havana, and Miami, so there's some precedent for this. One also supposes that Rockstar's Agent, if it's ever produced, will of necessity - considering its Cold War spy narrative - require similar globetrotting.

But there's also depth. Maybe scope isn't the problem? Maybe it really is important to focus in on a single location, in a way not dissimilar to Indiana Jones and his Desktop Adventures, from way back when, which was focused in the American Southwest and told a lot of shuffled up stories within that context. Maybe it's more about giving an appropriate level of archaeological depth to the story, along with lots of colorful friends and foes, along with individual locations with a grand enough scale to enable some Indiana Jones-style set pieces.

So, thoughts? I reckon setting is one of the more interesting questions involved in this hypothetical, at least by my lights.

Raiders:Cairo:no pyramids. Doom:India:no Taj Mahal. Crusade:Venice:sewers?

Rockstar would do Indy justice, no doubt...

Third world locations, customs and superstitions...

Point being that the films didn't do all of the obvious things with the places they feature? Well, that's true. (And to their credit, to my way of thinking, save for the sewers.)

Here's what I figure: whatever setting that could be chosen, potential variety of landscape matters, if for no reason more elaborate than that Indy needs places to go to, and to enlist people to take him there. (There's plenty of room for the Jocks, Katangas, and Webers of his world to fit in here, to say nothing of the third-world local sleazos like Sapito and Barranca.)

If they hadn't just used it in the film (and I suppose I'll operate on the assumption that this is something that would be made in a few years, as a way of considering where it stands in the franchise) I'd think the Amazon is best. You can bring in the Andes, and the Pampas, and some islands. Throw in all sorts of Only Angels Have Wings business with aviation. And if they have it in the 1940s, in the post-war environment, they can finally play the post-war Nazis fleeing to Argentina game. Also: Mac.

Alternately, China, if they can resist the temptation to have Indy go to Shi Huangdi's tomb yet again, would afford a variety of locations.

Central Africa - but even though imperialism happened everywhere, i think it would be harder to make that a place for a fun time. Nevertheless, it's the great untapped location for Jones narratives, Young Indy aside. (I've got a lot of regard for the series, but they are fundamentally different in focus.)

I could see it being a somewhat sandbox game.
Indiana Jones can pretty much only be go from A to B in a level and it I can't see it working as a complete open sandbox.
If there would be sandbox then I could see it at one point in the story where there are a couple of things to do in a certain location for a number of people.
Much like Rockstar games tend to do.

Just putting my thoughts in...

Stick an airport in it and let him jump to other continents. Like unlocking a bridge in GTA.

Is this true, though? To consider Raiders, for example, the entire time he's in Egypt he's alternating between Cairo and the dig site, with a lot of different things happening at each. The entire Pankot complex is treated similarly.

I agree that a lot of the things we expect and require in an Indy narrative, namely exploring ruins that contain traps and tend to collapse in on themselves, are a less easy fit into the sandbox form than some of the other elements (like, as you point out, going around doing things for people, which we've come to expect in Indy games, at the very least).

Maybe you're right, though, that there will be places (namely, ruins - chase scenes can happen anywhere) that are really only used for a given set piece, and are of necessity so linear that they can't be a part of the general gameplay. (Although, with that said: there is the "Return to Peru" level in Infernal Machine, which shows that, in a return to the Temple of the Chacopoyan Warriors, that there is fun to be had in returning to a ruined complex that has already collapsed.)

And, I suppose, I'm taking it as an assumption that there will be places in the game that you cannot visit until other things have been accomplished, be it through traversing a landscape or getting a pilot to take you there, or what have you. (Strange how the more I think about this, the more it seems like a prettier version of Desktop Adventures. Bring it on, van Loon!)

This is the most significant thing that's been said in this entire thread.

The idea of a total open-world Indy game is pretty ludicrous. Not only would it never happen in a million years, but it wouldn't work based on the sheer fact that the core of an Indy adventure is and must always be a tightly woven narrative that keeps the player (or audience) sucked into the story and itching to see what happens next. Open world games, by definition, do not allow for such tightly driven narratives, because the player can, at any time, break up the pacing of the story and go off and do god-knows-what. An Indy game made in this fashion simply would not feel like an Indiana Jones story. Sorry, but the man in the hat is not going to be riding the tales of Ezio Auditore or Niko or anything like that any time soon. Nor should he be.

The most appropriate current gaming formula for a great Indy tale would probably be the Uncharted formula, except with a heavier bend towards puzzle solving and fisticuffs as opposed to shoot-em-ups.

Well, now, this is the most significant thing that's been said.


I'm not kidding around; this is the level to engage with this on, as far as I'm concerned. After all, it should be about story, and how the gameplay can serve that.

I haven't played Staff of Kings yet, but as far as I'm concerned, the Indy game that is the most striking failure is Emperor's Tomb. Yes, Fate of Atlantis is inherently wedded to its nature as a graphic adventure, but it had a grand scope and a narrative and a real sense of choice. Yeah, Infernal Machine had an entirely gun-based combat system, but it's environments were huge, and you really felt like you were exploring something, and the mythos made sense. Emperor's Tomb was more or less on-the-rails, though. Yeah, there was fun platforming, and the combat system was a blast, but the narrative was a shambles, just composed of having you jump from place to place around the globe without any real sense of why, or any explanation as to why the three parts of the Heart of the Dragon or whatever it was where in Ceylon, Istanbul, and Prague (at least try to make something up about Marco Polo, or somebody.)

But then there's Desktop Adventures. I don't know how many people really remember that game, the one we get our icons from here, but the most interesting thing about it is that it's really just a presentation of a time when Indy and Marcus went down to Mexico for awhile to obtain various artifacts. That's the only way it makes any sense in canon. Other than his dig site at the beginning of Infernal Machine, and more-or-less equivalent bag of pot shards we get at the beginning of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we've never seen Indy doing basic archaeology, where he's not just on an adventure, but he's actually running a dig, or tracking down some artifact or lost city from a given home base. We saw that a number of times in the novels (especially MacGregor's), but not elsewhere. And that makes sense, because films are a narrative form, and games wouldn't think that that's interesting. Let's not kid ourselves: the sandbox form has a lot of the graphic adventure in it, what with the whole "doing favors for people in order to proceed" gameplay style they often break off into.

I was saying some stuff before about trying to find a larger scale, about managing to cover a large swath of South America or China or Africa in the location where such a game might take place, but this is, fundamentally, an opportunity to tell a very different form of story. It'd be a lot more like a miniseries or a short form television series than a single film, to offer a metaphor. There'd be climaxes strung throughout, but the heart of it would be Indy spending time in a given place, getting to know the people, getting embroiled in their problems, perhaps, and trying to avoid make his problems theirs, all the while trying to carry on a normal archaeological dig that results in him stumbling upon something larger and richer than that.

This is also, inherently, a late period Jones story; I was throwing out the immediate post-war period, but maybe it's a story that takes place after some great loss, maybe Marcus, or his father. The emotional core than becomes him getting on with his life's work, and some of that is the tedious labor of real archaeology.

I agree, Lambonius, that, generally speaking, Indy stories demand a certain driving narrative thrust. But I'm not sure that that's a matter of the character so much as it is of the form. I think it's possible to try something different. And, look, this game isn't going to happen, we all know that. But talking about it makes for a fun framework to explore what the character can and cannot do as the central figure in a work of art.

I think it would be great to explore the markets of Peru as Indiana Jones. From a game design standpoint there is no reason you can't offer more side quests. Imagine getting to Machette Landing and having to wait to meet Satipo of Barranca. Check out the locals, who offer you side quests or try to sell you "antiques."

Maybe you can aquire bits, (or friends) to make the main A-B easier or collect enemies who complicate things...

Marshall College offers a paycheck and possibly expenses if you're inclined to open your mail, money does make things easier...maybe pick up a second gun for Belloq this time. Maybe you can sell some stuff to Marcus.

...they might want to keep their prostitutes though...

I see your point, Rocket. Hearing it said that way makes it seem more likely to be a good game. I can see where the market would be a good sandbox area.

I think if they would make a sandbox Jones game then I would like to see open world like that but I would also like to see some A to B levels because it just is something to break up the big open world feeling and slow things down.

A nice little walking level through a cave to collect some bit of junk. :p
As if we've never seen that before.

As for the prostitutes, I think we'd all love to pick up some turban covered babes in our horse pulled wagons... :D

Why does everyone always want a Rockstar-style sandbox game for everything?

1. There's a reason why the sandbox genre is referred to as "GTA-style" or "Rockstar-style" - Rockstar are the only ones that do it correctly on every level. Even the best of the alternatives get something major wrong. Just Cause 2 for example, story, characters and main missions are all terrible. In Mafia II, those were great but the open world itself was neglected.
2. People were even begging Telltale to make Back To The Future an open-world sandbox game. Not only does that require a lot of money, time and a gigantic development team, it also would not be right for the franchise.
3. With the exception of Spider-Man, no franchise would truly work in a sandbox. Okay, maybe Batman.

I would love an Infernal Machine-type game full of exploration, but a full Red Dead Redemption open-world for Indy? Definitely not. It just would make no sense. I want to explore, but not to that degree. That would require one location, and Indy works best with multiple locations across the globe.

Staff of Kings is still the biggest missed opportunity in Indy gaming Attila. WHAT THE HECK DID A JADE SPHERE FROM PERU HAVE TO DO WITH MOSES, and WHY DID IT DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

I believe Tingler just closed this case...

I'll admit, it's been awhile since I played SOK, I had the psp version. Looking back on it, I guess I just assumed that the Jade Sphere was an opening 3rd act "throw-away" artifact, and an excuse to establish a doublecross. I'll also openly admit that the plot seemed convoluted enough to me that I paid little attention to it. Maybe if the gameplay was engaging enough for me to run through it more than once.....

You want your game, I want mine.

Why couldn't a game "like" Red Dead take place in different locations? Because it's too hard? Why would that REQUIRE one location? Are they unable to create others?

There's no doubt a game which locks Indy in one location would be weak, but what "makes no sense"?

It's absolutely possible to make a game which you can play the main story over a few hours, or go back to locations and sniff around.

How cool would it be asking around Machete Landing for Barranca and Sapito when some locals are chased into town, one is gunned down in front of you and another pleads for your help. You have to decide if and how to help him, make a stand or hide him/her.

Then you discover Barranca is chasing them down.

I want to explore, as Indy, to that degree and more.

Hey rocket, how about a open world/sandbox Indy that uses marshall college as a hub? You could get everything out of that. Imagine Indy doing some quests all over the world that way! He could do a Vatican city map where he has to track down missing pieces of the Arma Christi, which then leads him to other areas of the globe, which opens up more quests, more bosses, etc. Of course there has to be a main quest/artifact, which I don't think anyone disputes. A scenario like this opens up almost unlimited options for DLC and expansion packs!

I like that.

Go anywhere. Do anything. Hitch a plane ride. Walk off into the jungle. Emerge at the edge of town. Anything's possible. But it'd have to be in first person, to really become part of the environment.

I think you would HAVE to mix perspectives and styles of game play. I would love to be able to wipe out the Nazi's at the sub base like it were a level of Call of Duty, after the Ark cleaned up Belloq and that crew of course.

I think it was Medal of Honor that had a whole level inside a German Sub...

First person? Not sure how Indy-ish that would feel. Gotta have the fedora in plain view imho. I really like the over-the-shoulder third-person view from Resident Evil 4 and Dead Space, and also the uncluttered HUD-less view of Dead Space.

You'd see Indy's shadow on the ground or the wall, and his reflection in glass, mirrors or water. You'd see the whip snake out and the revolver.

I prefer first person, as it puts you right into the action and environment. Making your way into a dark tomb complex in first person can be more atmospheric than in third.



Okay you can have third person as an option.

I think it was Medal of Honour. I've battled up and down a sub somewhere to plant explosives.

Sick. :up: I'm not drawn to FPS's, but I love the sound of that. There's room for some real creativity there, too! Like before a boss, or like Indy's own "Spidey Sense" you start to cast the iconic shadow just before the action starts!!!



No reason not to go that route, It's been done in other games rather seamlessly. Fallout 3 comes to mind.

The shadow/reflections are great ideas...especially as a precursor to an unavoidable action element, (as opposed to keeping to the shadows).

I have to add, the music makes a big difference too...

I recently dusted off the Dreamcast to play Virtual On and eventually Quake III with my boy and the Raiders soundtrack gave a spooky feel to the game. Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack had us laughing during deathmatch!

Whew! THOSE are the words I was looking for. Took me a minute get the words to express the "Spidey" analogy, but you nailed what I was trying to say right there.

Yeah, scoring for games has become on par with film, as the two media continue to merge. A little footnote, what you described about changing the game scores reminded me of something I used to do. I'd put on some music (usually metal) and turn on the tv to make an impromptu music video, editing by flipping channels on the fly. Yeah, before parenthood I could get that bored.

Attila, it seems as though you have an aversion to the open-world style of game and the on-rails type of funneling that we see in many (if not most) games. I think there is room for an Indy game that does both. Have you played Fallout 3? Or Fable 2? Both had a main story and the ability/option to perform side-quests to either flesh out the experience, add gameplay, and round out the central character. In your post, you praise FOA for I don't see why that couldn't be done to even greater effect with this type of game.

Perhaps there is the stigma of Grand Theft Auto's exploitative content that shuns you from the idea. If that's the case, I'm sure you are not alone. I personally have zero interest in that franchise myself. But there are plenty of other games that are fantastically engaging that utilize this method of play and story-telling. Like the immense Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, or the genre-bending Mass Effect 2. ME2 has been called a shooter, a RPG and an open world game.

While there is and seemingly always has been a desire to have a game play out like a good movie, there is also the immersive element. The idea that you yourself are driving the plot through real choices, in a real world. If the plot of a game were as tight as an hour and a half feature film, it would end up being a short game. I beat SOK in one day, for example. And I don't even remember the plot. I remember the gameplay, though. The traditional gameplay that didn't offer me any thrills that could have been gotten elsewhere, and been more satisfying.

Everyone is different, but I would be on board for a sojourn into an open-world Indy. To be able to discover adventure rather than to be led by the hand through one seems a fitting approach to my sensibilities! A linear game can provide that, but not nearly on the same scale.

I think having an Indiana Jones game set in an sand-box/open-world environment is a horrible idea (no offense to those who support it). It's too much filler, and too much fluff. I don't want to play an Indy Simulator, I want to play a great adventure.
Also it sounds like you guys want a RPG for the next installment. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The structure of the Uncharted series is the way to go for the next Indy game IMO. Linear, focused on the goal, scripted events (instead of aimlessly wandering the landscape) and witty dialogue.

I've yet to play Uncharted, but I don't see why an Indy game couldn't offer both. As well as I could remember GTA, you could play the main missions without bothering with the rest of the environment.

I have no love for RPGs but I would enjoy a game where, if I chose to go to another place instead of heading off directly on the main mission, I would be swarmed by children and potentially have my pockets picked. If I wasn't fast enough to appease them with money or food I might have to chase them down to get my part of the map back...

If I were fast enough maybe I could make a friend who would warn me of Barranca and Satipo...not just what we already know: they’re not trust worthy, but maybe something more substantial like hinting to a trap they might try to spring or some one of their locally known deceptions: they'll try to have you stay the night and set off in the morning, don't do it. Something like that...

I think the two can co-exist...

You can have your scripted fast paced linear adventure, and/or you can check out the locals for assistance or a deeper adventure.

Yeah I don't get that. It was a decent game, but didn't live up to the hype for me. Well executed game, but it didn't blow me away. It felt too scripted, like I was watching a movie, and the controller was in essence the remote I was using to fast forward to the next cutscene (by way of bullets). Granted, I've only been able to play the first in that series so far, but every level was made to look open, but really just bottle-necked you into the next area, the next cutscene. That's fine and all, but how many games have we all played like that. It's gotten old to me. But hey, everyone's different. And c'mon Lonsome, "aimlessly wandering the landscape"? You don't really think that's how this type of game is played do you? If so, I can't blame you for being uninterested. You get clear goals to stride towards called The Main Quest, and....nevermind, I know you're not a dummy. There's no reason that an open-world game can't have scripted events, or witty dialogue, either. If you just want a linear plot, and linear gameplay I can appreciate that, but I'm over it. While I haven't been wowed by any of the previous Indy games in that format*, I'd be happy to play any kind of Indy game that improves on it's predecessors, rather than backslides *cough*SOK*cough*

*I still have yet to play FOA and it's alternate endings.


HAHAHA!!! That's awesome! And would work in any kind of game.

You could have the main storyline missions, side quests, random quests. But, that does not mean the game will be linear (hence both).
I enjoy both types of games, but I greatly enjoy linear games more. Moving from point A to point B in a natural way seems more appealing for an Indy game IMO.


This could be done in a linear game as well.
Have the more action-packed levels set as a linear path. But also add breathing time to explore and look around(more open-ended) in another level.
Some levels could be more open, and have multiple routes with different events happening in each one, but still have a main focus.


Yes, I think the can co-exist to a certain degree. There can't be a Red Dead Redemption style sandbox game that has huge elements being linear. Just like a Castlevania game can't also be fully open-ended. But, there can be small snippets of both.


I can understand your point.
But after playing so many open-world games, I have grown tired of them like you have the linear ones.
Uncharted was meant to feel like a movie. HUGE set-pieces with tons of action, with some breather time (puzzles) thrown in. I do agree the gunplay got a little thin at times.
Uncharted 2's pacing is far better than the first one. It truly felt like an Indy adventure.


I have played my share of sandbox games.
Using the storyline missions in said genre as an example - One completes a task. Has to travel across the map to the next one (fast traveling is usually not allowed until you visit the area first), go fetch said item for the NPC, fetch another item. Travel, travel and more travel is what most of the quests are made of. It may not be aimlessly wondering, but one still walks the empty expanses too much; hoping a random quests may be triggered.

I know my view is not a popular one here. But, I like to have a goal in my games. Even when not doing a mission in the sandbox genre, walking or riding around without reason really gets boring to me.

It would be great if there was an Indy game where unique events happened in almost every corner of the map. But, the fact is with almost all open-world games, they get repetitive and trite.
I've yet to see an open-world game which feels like something new is happening at all times, but RDR was in the right direction.

But, all of this prittle-prattle is just my two-cents.

Yeah you went disguised as a Nazi... (Of course) in a sub base. Planting bombs if I'm not mistaken.

Special Cargo is the fourth mission in Medal of Honor: Frontline. It takes place on the German submarine U-4902.

During this mission, Jimmy Patterson must Sabotage the German U-Boat 4902 as it reaches the port of Lorient, France.

Play this level with Raiders music:

What wikipedia page did you copy and paste that from?:D

http://medalofhonor.wikia.com/wiki/Special_Cargo
Passed the memory test...

...now if I can find my Memory card so I don't have to play it from the start!

Conceptually Yes, Will It Happen No.
Two Words: Lucas Arts

No, it's not possible.

Though from a technical standpoint it would be very possible. Economical, too, considering it'd likely become a hit comparable to ice in Sahara.

But there's one thing that prevents the creators of the character and, to some extent, even us from dropping Indy into a world where we are given a chance to make our adventure.

GTA, Fallout, Oblivion, Mass Effect... they all have something in common. It's your character. He or she is a blank slate. They may have a name (or not), they may have some established relationships in the game world (or not), but they don't have a backstory (or if they do, it's very vague), and they certainly don't have a personality other than the one player crafts for him or her. And this is an important aspect in making an open world game work.

Indy is not a character like this. He is someone whose past we know very well. We know what he can do and can't do. He is an adventurer archaeologist, moral alignment Very Good. He lives in a reality that ultimately has very little shades of gray, and he always does what is considered the "right thing". In other words, he would make a very bad character for a game where player is given greater choice of direction to go.

It's pretty obvious that Lucas would never put us in a position where we could be given a choice to do morally ambiguous things as in-character Indiana Jones (like opening fire towards a group of non-combatants), and I doubt rare a gamer, especially a die-hard fan of the character, could do that even if given the choice. Because the second we do, the illusion of being Indy just breaks. We may still play a character called Indiana Jones, but we stop being THE Indiana Jones we know so very well.

Okay, you can put limitations in place. Save for possibly Fallout, you can't kill plot-critical characters on a whim in the games mentioned. Commander Shepard is arguably a hero, and you can't kill innocent bystanders when in his or her boots. But even as him/her you're given the choice to do something not-so-nice here and there. An Indy sandbox would likely offer you a ton of great opportunities to stumble across situations where you can be a hero. You may come across a guy sinking in a pit of quicksand. Or, to utilize another old serial trope, there could be a damsel tied to some train tracks. Now, let's imagine for a second that you'd turn your back to these poor souls. Just walked away. That's a moment right there you'd stop being Indy again. It's very likely that the game would force you in a situation where you can't continue before you do the right thing. If we have a realistic time cycle, you could return to the scene two ingame days later to find the guy still waist-deep in quicksand. The train never came, the sassy lass is still on the tracks, spouting expletives. You're not really in a place where you make your own adventure. Sure, you can go wherever you want, but you might as well be playing a linear game.

So there. No greater freedom for Indy. Sooner or later, you'd come across a situation where either the feeling of being the character you know and love, or the world he's dropped in, just breaks. In worst case, both happen simultaneously. No, Indy belongs in a different world.

If he were to make an appearance in a sandbox/RPG, he would be a plot-critical NPC at best. Perhaps someone who mentors the player character and gives missions and other things to do (and reacts accordingly if our choice is not how he would have done it). But to play as him... no. Just no.

That's the best argument against the idea I've heard so far. I would like to respond to Indy doing questionable things at the hands of the player. I don't see any reason why you couldn't play through a game like this that has limitations on what you can do so that you can maintain the Hero persona. After all, no game truly lets you do EVERYTHING that you want. There are inherent limits no matter what, anyway, because we're talking about the game world, not our world.

Here's an idea, how about a game like this that let's you do all kinds of crazy stuff that Indy would never consider, and much like Fable 2, it alters the appearance of Indy, but into another character altogether. Whatever the main quest of the game, it could involve a relic that both Indy and the main villain have touched. If you do questionable things, it triggers the relic and causes you to swap bodies with the villain and play as that character for a while, or until you redeem yourself. Or something. Heck there could be an element to the game that requires that you do something like Smack shorty around under the influence of The Blood of Kali for example. I still think that there's room for an open-world Indy, and I know as well as anyone else here that it'll never happen. I think it's a shame though, I'd like to play one.

Then why does the character have to be Indy, if its not going to be Indy?

Just a thought, you know, to give consequence to bad actions on the part of Indy. Perhaps the villain can do a few things that Indy can't which would necessitate the transformation from time to time, and if that's not needed for the progression of the story, it would discourage the player from behaving in un-Indy like ways.

If it came to the player being punished for doing "evil" things. Why even have the option to do them at all?
Just leave out choices like that all together. I still hate the idea of an open-world Indy game, but if it were to happen (I know it will never), have the missions based on good deeds without the option of doing evil.

At which stage the game might as well be linear, which was my original argument.

The only game I've seen to pull off some hard choices with an already established character is The Witcher. But then again, the crapsack fantasy world it takes place in kind of makes that possible. When the main character himself is sort of a magical mercenary and an antihero, and every character he runs across a random combination of a thief, cheater, philanderer and murderer it's pretty evident that every choice you face is more or less about determining the lesser of two evils.

While Indy's capable of doing some harsh things when he feels it's justified, he still a bit of too goody two-shoes to have a place in an open video game world. Which brings us to another thing that just strengthens my argument: if it was feasible to create an open-world game where your only option is to play a good-aligned character, somebody would have done that already.

Hmm... now that I think of it, Assassin's Creed kind of counts. But even that allows players to go stabhappy among innocent bystanders should they so choose. But if we consider what the guy does for a living, it's kind of hard not to leave the option there.

I honestly agree with you.
The only way this would work is if we had the option to create our own adventurer set in Indy's world.
The game could take place in the mid 30s for example. The player could come across Indy at different points in the game (the player could also be an old student of Indy's). We could either help Indiana, or compete against him in different missions.

I could see about 12 chapters in the game. Each chapter is made of a large open expanse of land sprinkled with side-missions as well as the story-missions. How we choose to do each one could either let us gain Indy's loyalty or disdain.
One chapter could be a jungle in the Amazon looking for an old temple. NPCs are here and there with their own unique quests, and while we do these things Indy himself is looking for the temple as well. We are either competing against him or helping him find clues.
That way we would have the choice of doing it our own way.

I hope all of that made some sort of sense.

Make it wartime OSS Indy, and not only can he can plant bombs in the sandbox, but he can take out German sentries with his whip.

No, no it won't.
More than a handful of words:
Lucas Arts doesn't give a damn about Indiana Jones as long as there is a buck to be made off of Star Wars fanboys by making more SW games. :up:

Have the option to play as Belloq.

Same missions, just that this time anything goes.

For Indy, amassing 'evil' actions, whether by accident or by design, would result in penalties that would encourage you to be more careful. That would make Indy's game more tactical, but Belloq would have the freedom to do what he wanted.

What would a turn as Indy be if you weren't tempted to take the way of the gun? Enter Raiders Indy vs the wacky archaeologist argument.

It's not that difficult, and it's been done before, (FoA). Any A-B objective has three possible ways of completing. Fists, wits, team...though choices could be made more frequently instead of locking you in.

You can choose to plow through, high adventure style but the tactic of lethal/nonlethal has a counter which attracts attention based on location and your choice. If not over used, or only when you're fighting "fire with fire," it makes the level faster. Use it too much and you create more pitfalls, more enemies and the obstacle course becomes a virtual minefield too...

I'm currently playing Fallout 3 - and this is my kind of game. Virtually anything is possible, with seemingly infinite combinations to make things different. Various ways to solve problems, with differing results for your character's personality and health, along with wider implications on the world around you.

I feel so invested in the character that moral choices seem very real. I'm also invested in my big Ghoul buddy Charon with whom I'm having great adventures (I gave him a wasteland mask so I no longer have to look at his rotting face!)

Now all this would be perfect for an Indy adventure: as a roguish character he can choose different paths to success, as he builds his knowledge through research and experience.

Taking Raiders as an example, there are certain things Indy has to do before he can locate the Ark (meeting Marion, obtaining the headpiece, overcoming German opposition, etc). In a Fallout 3 style, such a game could inter-link with other sub-adventures along the way.

One obstacle would be the 'Fast Travel' between found locations, though. There would have to be realistic explanation for Indy's ability to travel quickly (like maybe select locations from the stamps in his passport - the places he's already visited)

Until I'm proved wrong, I could see it working.

I've been playing Dragon Age II recently... the way the game is designed could work for an Indy game. It's not as "open" as GTA or some other games, but I like how they designed the game.

While Finn's still right about how they wouldn't tell this kind of story, the above is the way out of the "wacky archaeologist" problem. If he does things he wouldn't normally do, well, he's behaving erratically. The man could be adrift.

You also want it in the timeframe between the war and Crystal Skull because it maximizes the sorts of villains you would credibly be going up against. Escaped Nazis, Russians, Red Chinese, mobsters, corrupt American elements, tinpot dictators, warlords, native tribes, Third World sleazos, pickpockets who don't know who they're up against...