I do some software development professionally (though not game programming) so I'll add some suggestions here regarding project management: The first thing you should do in any project (even before you start listing features) is decide what the primary goals of the project should be. That way you can evaluate what features are important and HAVE to be included to achieve your goals. For instance, if your goal is to have realistic/beautiful looking cities then you need to focus on the features that make it that way (allowing curved streets, more object placement options, etc) and will most likely result in a "static" city where the user controls all aspects of placement. However if you're looking for creating a simulation that mimics how cities react to government decisions (where the user is in the position of government) then the feature set needs to be shifted to building things that governments tend to do (roads and zoning) and leaving other decisions up to the simulation engine. The SimCity series has attracted a large fan base who are attracted to the game for many different reasons. The series has always tried to balance what I call the "builders" (who like to completely manage the design/layout of the city) with the "simmers" (who like to build a dynamic city that changes with response player decisions). The "builders" are often about aesthetics while the "simmers" are more about the modelling (traffic models, economic models, etc). The series has tried to please both with various degrees of success. Of course, few people are strictly one or the other - most people are in between. The trouble is, you're never going to end up with a product that is all things to all people. No matter what you do there are going to be trade-offs. SimCity 4 made trade-offs of some features (more realistic traffic flow, curved streets, full 3D, etc) to meet other demands (working on more systems on the time given processing power, simplifying models for faster performance, etc). Defining goals for a project serves the purpose of helping to decide which way to go when conflicts arise. It also helps new people who want to join the project to instantly know what you're trying to achieve and be able to work towards that end that much quicker. After you have your goals, then you start brainstorming your feature set. These are often "the sky's the limit" sort of things, but don't rule anything out yet or argue why something should or shouldn't be done at this point because that limits creative thinking and creates bad feelings, and you might loose some very intriguing new ideas. After you've collected ideas, then you need to sit down and seriously think about each feature and if it brings you towards your goals or not. This doesn't mean you absolutely can't include a feature if it doesn't specifically align to a certain goal. The purpose is more to prioritize the feature set so when you get down to actual coding the programmers can figure out what tools and object structures will be needed to implement them. The difference between a successful project and one that fails comes down to management (I hate to admit it because I'm not in any management position in my job, but its true . Lone programmers writing their own project often succeed because they already have a clear idea of what they want and work towards that end. As you add more people to a project with their own take on things you need some way to make sure everyone is working towards the same end, and that people work together and communicate with each other effectively on what is needed. Personally I think your estimation of 1 year is quite optimistic. Taking a look at other group projects and how long they've taken: FreeCiv, FreeCol, and others have been around for quite some time. There are often severely feature-limited alphas that come out within a year or so, but it will probably take at minimum 2 and more likely 3+ years to get to the state of something like Sim City 4 if you're starting from scratch. During this time there will be turnover of people participating in the project as some will lose interest, some will run into time conflicts with work/school/family/spore/etc, and new people will join up and need to be brought up to speed. Successful multi-developer (including programmers, artists, planners, etc in this) get to be that way because they are well defined and organized. Linux, Mozilla, and other examples of large multi-developer projects show this. None of them are free of problems, but they are all able to get a product out the "door" (so to speak) because they are organized in a way where everyone knows what they're working towards, what needs to be done, and how they fit in. But now I'll throw my 2 cents in as far as what I like from different games in general: I'd fit somewhere between a "simmer" and a "builder". I personally love working economies (note: economies don't mean money, they mean resource distribution and use). For instance, I love it when resources get distributed and used. It makes me feel like its a living world and the changes matter. An example of this in a SimCity type setting would be if you needed farm land to grow food for the citizens (but that also supplies jobs, which are a demand for citizens as a resource), coal plants need coal which might necessitate a coal mine from somewhere (again supplying jobs). I love to build things that evolve over time from rural to urban. No SimCity game has provided a fully working economy (if that's even possible in a game, really) but I still love the SimCity games in part because they provide some aspect of resource management (in terms of jobs, transportation systems, power, water, refuse collection). So even though its a simplified economic model I still get some joy from it. However I also get upset at how grid-like my neighborhoods end up being. I'd like more organic beauty in them. If you look at aerial photos of communities they may have sections that are more grid-like (usually downtown areas) but residential and suburban neighborhoods have curved streets branching off from the main line and paths that follow more of the lay of the land. And rural communities even more so, where roads were build around natural barriers and historic property lines. Uniqueness is what adds beauty and charm to a community. Even "run down" communities have a beauty because of this. Lets face it, though they're efficient, grids are just boring in the end . I think an independent project is definitely a worth goal. Even if I didn't get a lot of features I'd like from it in, I'd still support it. My only problem is that I don't know how much time I could devote to it. Plus, as I said earlier, I'm not a game or graphics programmer and have little experience to offer in that respect. Edit: Between the time I started this reply in the morning, and the time I actually got to post it (hours later due to needing to do my job I see some of what I was trying to suggest here had already been recognized as necessary by others coming into place (re: the goals). Good job!
