It''s probably a bit wankerish to say PumpkinOne (my software company) is developing a next gen game. But it is the aim of "MI6 SECTION D" to be part of a new RPG-RTS-thinker-action genre. I need to know how much user interaction you game freaks desire with your surroundings and NPC''s. Bearing in mind, this is going to be a 3/4 view openGL rendered game (like diablo but not as huge). Give me your ideas and expectations for a so-called next gen game.

Make it full 3D and provide as much interaction as possible--more interaction = more immersion!

So what you''re saying in terms of engine is that it will be essentially sprite-based? That is, it will use prerendered images for the motile objects? You may want to rethink this as you consider the following suggestion - which as I recall dates back all the way to last year or so.

In many games, the items a character interacts with have only one "use". A broom is used to sweep, a fire extinguisher is used to put out fires, a shoe is worn on the foot. This understandably limits interactivity.

In the real world, items are more than their intended use. Because a broom is also a stick, it can be used to reach into narrow crevices. Because a fire extinguisher is also a heavy object, it can be used to prop a door open. Because a shoe is hollow, it can be used to store marbles.

If game objects are constructed from components and attributes, their uses are more numerous. A broom, for instance, is derived from a rod, which can be used to prod things at a distance, prop things up, etcetera. It also has bristles, which add the ability to sweep. These uses are all available to the player''s character. An interface such as a toggle use button or a use menu allows the character to cycle through the uses of a given object, switching his grip as necessary for the given task.

To do this with sprites would be prohibitive: one would have to render and include animations for every single use of every single item at every single angle. If the game were done in 3d, however, the skeletal animations of the character and item would need to be made only once for any given use, and then whichever item was being used in that manner would be substituted in for the base item.

A 3D engine is no easy task, but for true total interactivity it may be a prerequisite. I''m not sure how much manpower and money your design group can throw at this, but depending on your circumstances you may want to reduce your ambitions slightly. Small companies can make excellent small games, but it''s unrealistic to try to create a colossus of technology with limited resources.

Just one man''s opinion.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

Another interesting side effect is to be able to create new things. Take the broom and the shoe. You can use the broom to sweep, but if you take the string out of the shoe, and use it to tie a knife to one end of the broom handle, you now have a spear that can sweep. This makes sense, but how can you automate it? It would take some interesting programming to be able to do all these things.

With the same spear-broom, what if you wanted to make a table with a flat board and 4 sticks. How would the program know that you cant prop the table up with a stick that has a knife attached, but you can with a normal stick? What if you wanted to attach another knife to the broom? Would the program know that it should probably go on the same end as the other knife, using the same string?

As you can see, there are just too many different ways of doing things. Try to make it interactive, but to a certain point. Going to far with it will just leave the user frustrated because he can''t do a lot of the ingenious things that he thinks should be able to do, just because you haven''t scripted it in. If you keep it simple to start with, he won''t consider doing it, which saves him frustration.