[I thought I saw a thread that Rathalos created similar to this, but I couldn’t find it anywhere. If there is a thread like this, I can delete this one and just reply to the original one to keep discussions organized].
We are very close to the Macroscopic Stage, the quintessential “Belgium hits the fan” phase of the game when it comes to our scope. Discussion has been occurring about specific aspects of the Macroscopic - the transition from micro-to-macro, or the editor - but actual gameplay discussion is spread throughout those threads.
So having a thread focused primarily on gameplay itself would be useful. It’s a pretty broad topic, but if specific themes keep emerging, we can create separate threads for those too.
I will begin discussion by focusing on the gameplay loop, and proposing some sort of “evaluation” criteria for gameplay.
The Gameplay Loop
I don’t think this will end up being very different from what it is now at a fundamental level - spawn in, show your design is adapted enough to this environment to successfully reproduce, tweak your design, repeat. But I do think that the game transitioning from an abstract representation of a world to a fully 3D, geographically distinct environment brings some changes we have to be mindful of.
Two things stick out in my mind:
- The gameplay loop will likely have to be longer so that players can fully experience what this stage can offer.
- Because geography is more explicitly simulated, the world itself could very dramatically change in a few generations.
The first point is pretty straightforward, but the second point deserves some more reflection. In the microscopic phase of Thrive, you spawn into a background, reproduce/evolve, then spawn back into that same background with relatively little difference in the environment. But in the Macroscopic/Aware Stages, you spawn into an environment, reproduce/evolve, and can very well spawn into a completely new environment. A jungle can turn into a plain, a continental shelf can turn into a shallow sea, etc.
This is very interesting, but also can shorten some of the impact and gameplay narratives that our procedural planet can offer. For both “pure” gameplay purposes - having some measure of consistency, not completely surprising the player with a dramatically new world, the player truly proving themselves well-adapted to their current world - and more “abstract” gameplay purposes - the player’s understanding of the world, their emotional connection to a specific place as it transforms, the narratives forming in the player’s story - we need to both represent the timespans involved in evolution, and allow players to soak in their current world if they so choose.
If the way we represent the world is too stable and consistent, then we risk degrading the feeling of the world changing through the millions of years a player follows their species. In Earth’s history, this would be like assuming the world of the Cambrian, Carboniferous, Cretaceous, and Paleocene are incredibly similar - when in reality, so many moments of our planet’s history would look completely alien.
If the way we represent the world is too transient and inconsistent, then we risk degrading the identities and connection a player feels with their world. In Earth’s history, this would eliminate the narrative of, say, Australia’s unique lifeforms having a uniquely Australian identity, or the local stories of a forgotten Antarctican jungle. Balance is urgent.
Control Levers for Balancing Change vs. Stability
So, what are some control levers we have here? And by control levers, I mean things we can do to help moderate this design question. What mechanics and progression elements will be present to help us balance both the change and the consistency we need to represent?
I think there are two big “tools” we can use:
-
Pacing of Environmental Change - Exactly how we pace the way the world changes, and how frequently it does.
-
Player-Pace Progression Mechanics - Gameplay loops are somewhat flexible and not very set, and player has broad discretion over when they choose to end a specific loop.
Pacing of Environmental Change
Many games which represent events over a great period of time - Civilization and other 4X games, EU4/5 and other strategy games - tend to represent significant change in a somewhat controlled manner. Certain events and effects occur for a specific amount of time, the player somewhat understands what these events and effects entail, and is generally aware of how long a specific phase of the game will last.
We can introduce similar pacing mechanics to Thrive if we think it is appropriate. For example, when it comes to tectonic plates - larger changes can only occur every X number of generations, while smaller changes are more dynamic.
Player-Paced Progression
I’m going to commit a no-no here - let’s think of Spore’s Creature Stage (audience gasps).
In Spore, you can enter and exit the editor whenever you want to. You can enter the editor as soon as you exit it by pressing backspace - similarly, you can enter the editor an hour after you first spawn. The game encourages you to continue experiencing the world you live in by tying progression to exploration, as you both unlock editor points and parts through interacting with other organisms and sites in Spore.
Spore’s world will not change as much as Thrive’s, and will not be as dynamic: but the takeaway here is that the player determines how quickly they progress throughout the stage. And I think that would be a very valuable progression style to model in Thrive.
I still think we should have some sort of minimal period a player needs to survive in Thrive, as it is fundamental to the whole “prove your organism can survive” idea. But if we want to introduce aspects of a player-paced progression loop into Thrive, we would need to introduce mechanics that reward the player for playing in their current world for longer.
Evaluation Criteria
Another thing I will drop for consideration here. Given that this is probably Thrive’s most unique stage, we need to make sure that it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, fun. A good way to pursue a goal is to define smaller goals.
The below are categories of what goals and questions we can ask ourselves in designing concepts. Goals for each “aspect” of fun are listed, as well as an example sentence of this goal working well.
I think if we develop each category more into smaller objectives/questions and then have answers for those questions, we can go a pretty long way in having a very robust core gameplay loop.
Engagement - Is the actual gameplay action itself fun?
-
Goal: Getting food, movement, and interacting with the world is actually fun.
-
“Who knew that scrapping moss off a rock can be so satisfying? Next time I get to the editor, I want to see if I can scrape off even more moss in one go.”
Motivation - Does the player desire to accomplish a goal?
-
Goal: Players desire to achieve an overarching goal, and are able to set their own goals.
-
“This time, I’m going to try and create the fastest running organism possible. This will be a good challenge, since I need to make sure I can grab tools if I want to go forward.”
Pacing - Does the player feel neither stuck or rushed?
-
Goal: Players feel that they are moving towards something, but are able to pace how quickly they move towards that something.
-
“I really enjoy being this slug thing. Let me try and see if I can continue with this body plan for 5 more generations, then I’ll probably need to pivot.”
Gameplay Transformation - Do different approaches genuinely change gameplay rather than stats?
-
Goal: Gameplay across different saves provides similar core mechanics, but the way the player interacts with the world can differ dramatically.
-
“Now that I grew from 5 feet to 30 feet long, I am much less nimble and require much more food. I can’t continue to eat the same things I did - I need to pivot into a new niche.”
Communication - Does the player understand what’s going on, and how to do things?
-
Goal: Players aren’t overwhelmed or given answers, but understand what they are doing well, and where they can improve.
-
“I see that my organism has a very high population right now, but I notice that the weather is getting cold. I see that I should get thicker skin and less surface area to tolerate the cold more, so I’ll do that.”
Challenge & Mastery - Is the player sufficiently challenged, while having enough room to experiment?
-
Goal: Gameplay requires the player to be resourceful, but not every setback means the game is over; players have a chance to try again without losing hours of progress.
-
“My attempt to sustain myself fully on shelled organisms failed. Let me try and pivot into eating soft-bodied organisms”.