Destructible Environment

It would involve more work and a physics engine, but being able to interact with the environment is an amazing thing.

Agreed, it doesn't necessarily have to be destructible, but it should be manipulatable. I hate stupid static environments that just feel like they are working against you.

Depends on what scale? In it's entirety (Real life), then no. Also, it ends up being a lot of work, for something that's just "neat" and more than likely buggy, might be easily exploitable, or something. Making it more realistic, but not completely, where environment is able to be interacted with but makes not huge impact in the game is alright. However, I don't think it's needed. To a small effect it might be nice.

I'm not sure how much more work it would be. With the engine we are talking about, simply don't connect the various polygons together and make sure the map is made well for open world and you've got an environment that can be interacted with assuming the force is great enough to overcome the friction of the polygons.

This may be harder or easier than I'm making it sound. I don't know the ins and outs of "verse" at all.

After thinking about it, I'm against a Sandbox/Open world game. It's just far too much work without a full team that's dedicated to it.

You'll have to elaborate on the destructible environment. Can I change cliffs? Create rivers? Will I simply be interacting with destructible objects like boulders, crates, or trees?

I was thinking along the lines of the new Red Faction game. (Although probably not on that scale.) If you take out the supports for a building, it falls. If you apply force to something, it moves. If you blast the hell out of something, it is damaged or destroyed or at least moved.

Oh, I thought we were still in the area of WarCraft 3 and not in a separate game with its own engine and stuff... or are we?

We are talking about the game design software called "Verse". SinisteRing made a topic showing it off in another thread. It creates first person games and the objects you make in the game world are easy to create and look good. The graphics are like a PS2 game approximately although with admittedly less textures on the objects, but we could potentially give texture to objects it would just take more effort. I don't know much about the rest of the engine except that the game has to be in first person and other than that it seems to be able to do about anything and can be set up to create all kinds of unique things.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

I'm not sure how much more work it would be. With the engine we are talking about, simply don't connect the various polygons together and make sure the map is made well for open world and you've got an environment that can be interacted with assuming the force is great enough to overcome the friction of the polygons.

This may be harder or easier than I'm making it sound. I don't know the ins and outs of "verse" at all.

Its cute how you assume that 3d physics just happens. If you were working with JUST spheres, I could mock you up an engine in a day. I still haven't worked out the bugs in my triangle-based collision detection system and it becomes increasingly complicated if you want objects to rest against one another. Besides the fact that calculating collisions on every single terrain polygon would be ridiculously inefficient (If that is what you had in mind).

I have no idea what the potential of this engine is or the difficulty of making physics happen in it.

Even if it wasn't too difficult, unless it was integral in gameplay, it's "too much work for too little gain". It's basically just gimmicky, which can lead to bugs to the actual game.