Before I go on, I would like to say that I really appreciate you sharing these thoughts. I’d really like it if other developers post similar threads so that we can assess where we are as a team. I often post my take on Thrive here, but it’s less frequent that I am responding to what other people think.
First, some general thoughts on the topic you are addressing as a whole.
I will say that, though I agree with the view that we are lacking replayability, I do think we have enough content in the game to create solid replayability (besides terrain generation and some potential refinements to iron and sulfur). Our weakness in replayability lies more in the intention and synergy of our various mechanics. Because of the rush in the road map, we were very focused on implementing different significant features, and how those features optimally fit were slightly less discussed. I could have done a better job on my part in being forward thinking with that - but there’s an inherent part of game development that is an ongoing process, and it’s difficult to fully anticipate the impact or importance of every part without seeing it in game first.
In an ideal world, with limited pressure external to making a perfect game: after we’ve had this content rush, we’d have release cycles focused on refining certain mechanics to blend well together, figuring out the pacing of the game. For example, we’ve figured out that the dynamic environment early in the Microbe Stage is probably the most unique mechanic to the first stage - really nailing that down to create volatility, variation, and experimentation could result in some very significant improvements to the player experience. And balancing environmental tolerances to really nail a balance between two priorities of making tolerances approachable, while reinforcing the challenges life faces in adapting to different conditions, would further improve that. That’s why I focused a lot of writing in the “Finalizing the Microbe Stage” discussion on those two topics.
I will also note that there are certain improvements to slightly less “sexy” stuff needed to auto-evo, AI, and perhaps spawning that would strongly improve variation in gameplay. Even something like forcing auto-evo to try out various external parts/modifications, making microbes know how to use those parts, and making microbes a bit more aggressive in using them offers the benefit of enemies naturally driving variation in gameplay. Right now (atleast before Thim’s patch, which I haven’t tested yet), auto-evo can be very “reactive” in putting down abilities - largely using an external part only after the player puts it on themselves, or not having the AI to use a part - so players can have way too much influence on directing the flow of the game. Ideally, we’d have players sometimes having influence on the trajectory of their game, but oftentimes being made to react to what the game throws at them.
Now, to some discussion addressing points of your post:
I do agree that we need to be aware of the effect of our binding to the road map for the past year and a half or so, and also have some general sentiments about the state of our game: needing some decent amount of polish and intention behind our mechanics to create progression. As I mentioned above, we focused a lot on getting something working in our game which reflects our scope, while neglecting certain refinement due to either a lack of perspective or a focus on implementation itself. That is in fact a big motivation behind my Wrapping Up the Microbe Stage thread: Wrapping Up The Microbe Stage
Now, there are two big things swirling around in my head when it comes to polishing the Microbe Stage…
- Like you said, we need to ensure this stage is decent enough as a foundation to make sure our long-term fans believe in the quality of upcoming stages. If the Microbe Stage isn’t good enough for them, then the hype will naturally die down for upcoming stages - if a decade of development results in this, which I don’t find sufficient as a game, do I really believe enough in the project to stick around for future stages, where the development time is supposed to be shorter, and the foundations of the stage already set? It obviously isn’t fair to say that this decade of development is completely uniform, but still, that’s the general sentiment out there. Leaving the Microbe Stage as an unpolished and unrefined gameplay loop, with limited replayability, could have unintended consequences.
- On the other hand, development for the Multicellular Stage is not only timely - RSG could really benefit if news that Thrive has left the first stage is well received - but even looking beyond those reasons and purely at the strength of our gameplay, the next stage inherently tied to the Microbe Stage. The Multicellular Stage is based on Microbe Stage mechanics - therefore, even though it’s a different stage, progression, pacing, and gameplay of the two stages must be regarded as intertwined. And refining the Microbe Stage at this point, without knowing the important parts of the Multicellular Stage and how that gameplay will realistically look like, could lead to double work in refinement. If we focus too intensely on refining the Microbe Stage for several release cycles, and those refinements are partially undone by refinements to the Microbe Stage in the wake of the Multicellular Stage, we’re doing double work without much benefit.
To summarize: I do agree that we should seriously consider some refinements to the Microbe Stage, but beyond just finance and factors external to our gameplay itself, development on the Multicellular Stage would also give us better ideas on how to refine our gameplay loop between the two stages.
So with all that, what are some potential solutions? I see three “schools” of approaches to this.
- Volunteers Will Save Us: In a perfect world, that solution would be to see quality volunteer contributions on the Microbe Stage while hhyyrylainen continues to trail blaze on the Multicellular Stage, allowing us to make progress forward while refining our existing game. That obviously isn’t something we should completely rely on because volunteer contributions aren’t consistent or predictable.
- Fully Commit to Polishing: We spend a release cycle or two after the finish of the roadmap with full energy on refinements to the Microbe Stage. That could result in some awesome clean up to the game, but loses momentum in reaching our next stage of development, and, again, bumps into double work if we figure out that the Multicellular Stage requires further realignment of the Microbe Stage. That would be half a year of delaying the next stage.
- “Two-Phase” Refinements: We have two periods of refinement - a limited one now while the Microbe Stage is finishing development, and one that is a bit more comprehensive after the Multicellular Stage finished development. We agree on three or so choice actions to implement in the Microbe Stage to polish things now, choosing items that are as low effort to implement as possible which would result in the most benefits to the game. Other areas of refinement are identified, but are either accepted to be up to volunteer contributions, or to wait and see on the need for these refinements after the Multicellular Stage largely finishes up development. Then, they may be implemented in that period, allowing us to strongly sync the entire Microscopic Stage into a cohesive experience.
Of all those options, I am leaning towards option three. I do really think some refinements should be considered before we “move on”, but that we should choose only a few options instead of going into a full “no this needs improvement, and this needs improvement, and this needs improvement, and this needs improvement” nosedive of never-ending tweaks which might be undone. Once again, the Multicellular Stage is an extension of the Microbe Stage - it will have an effect on progression, and will require some tweaks to existing mechanics to fill certain priorities.
Ah, the “holistic stats” dilemma! I also agree, and have previously suggested such approaches in a Surface Area to Volume system (Surface Area, Volume, and Ratios - #37 by Deus). It is also the premise of my Macroscopic Stage Editor Concepts (Macroscopic Editor, Progression, and Principles - #41 by Deus). So, I do agree that such stats are important characteristics for making truly engaging gameplay.
I will say that when it comes to the surface area concept, my stance has considerably softened, to the point that I now think we should introduce such a stat on the Multicellular Stage. I don’t say this lightly - I have consistently argued for more complex and nuanced mechanics in the past - but I do think we should ease off slightly on introducing such a complex mechanic to our first stage.
Again, I have my opinions on making the game with too much care for the “new player experience” at the cost of giving more experienced players less to work with, and do think we have swung too much towards the new player in some discussions. But, with the Multicellular Stage approaching, I have realized that we have a whole other section of the “Microscopic Stage” yet to be implemented, and that introducing these more nuanced stats there instead of at the beginning of the game has some benefits:
- Something unique to the Multicellular Stage, justifying its presence as a notable “stage” of Thrive.
- Easier to balance - I get the feeling that measuring the shape of multicellular colonies is a bit easier than measuring the shape of a microbe is, considering that individual microbes tend to have more numerous parts and that players change shape constantly as they add more parts. This should mean that balancing is more approachable here, compared to a stage where lifeforms go from size 1 to size, what, 60 or so?
- That pesky(/s) new player experience is valuable here. We don’t want to overwhelm them with a tough-to-balance mechanic right off the bat.
Regardless of those caveats, I do agree with you here. An immediate actionable task from this here? As Hh mentioned in his reply, we do already have such a mechanic at play already, related to mobility. I think we can seriously consider bumping up the impact of that first, and find a way to represent it well in the organism stats panel. We can consider attaching another stat to it too - like you mention, engulfment size is an ideal pick - but that might be something we accept as contributed to by a volunteer instead of immediately prioritized.
I do agree that there is more uniformity in the loop across different metabolisms than is ideal. Games don’t have to vary dramatically in hands-on experience from one save to another - God of War, the Arkham Games, Civilization, KSP all generally have you do the same things for example - but those games occasionally force you to do something different, or atleast, change the order of actions. For example, God of War having enemies which force you to use certain attacks/weapons, Arkham being the same, Civilization making the environment change your order of tasks, an advanced editor game like KSP and the trial and error there naturally forcing different projects, etc.
With Thrive - the gameplay of a certain metabolism doesn’t have to be dramatically different in the immediate gameplay. But there should be something that incentivizes you to try a different route across different saves. Right now, across basically 90% of every game, you can do more-or-less the same actions and the game will play out the same way - start with iron, migrate to surface, get sunlight, wait for oxygen, done. There is no playthrough where photosynthesis is less lucrative; there is no playthrough where sulfur, iron, and glucose are not universally present in your world; there are very few playthroughs where you can’t get to the surface quickly (more interesting world gens actually delaying this results in some of the more unique playthroughs); there is no playthrough where it’s not much of a problem to become used to oxygen; etc.
Again, the script of the game being the same isn’t the sin - all those other games I mentioned before have a general rhythm. Every Microbe Stage should probably be separated into a “First Metabolism → Oxygen” progression. But currently, that first metabolism is basically completely up to the player deciding what they want to do instead of them having to improvise and adapt to what is given to them.
That is why I heavily stress increasing volatility of compounds as an important thing we should prioritize for the Microbe Stage. Introducing volatility to the point that you’re not sure which compound you’ll have to rely on at the beginning of the game, or how certain resources will change throughout time, would be a relatively simple thing to implement (simple as in not completely adding an entirely new mechanic, just tweaking an existing one) that results in an entire world of difference. Ultimately, if we don’t give players a reason to try different mechanics, they won’t just stumble into new experiences by themselves.
From that point, metabolism tweaks - sulfur being damaging to the player unless you have a chemosynthetic part, iron chunks being tweaked via siderophores, etc. - can be bonuses. But, that first step of introducing chaos is extremely valuable. Other mechanics can be discussed from that point.
This kind of is along the same point you bring up here, which I do think is spot on:
Heavy agreement here. It’s a shame that we are in a constant need for assets for terrain generation. Whenever an artist is able to provide sufficient assets for that feature, I do think it should be a priority to be implemented, making sure that there is variety across patches. Perhaps we can tweak the currents system too, to be even more pronounced in difference across patches.
I do agree here, but I think this is something that we should discuss with more of the Microscopic part of the game developed. Something that comes to mind are environmental conditions which can dramatically alter the state of a game forever. Though we need to be really mindful of a player starting the game with a certain expectation, then having that expectation taken away through a chance they can’t control. Tying it to planet customization could hopefully be a way to balance this.
Leave Ducky alone!
I do agree on the general sentiment of distancing ourselves now that we’re becoming more mature of a game. But I do personally like that easter egg. Maybe it can be made to be more rare (I’ve honestly never bumped into any easter egg though).
Some final concluding thoughts, summing certain things up and introducing new topics I want to bring up.
First - as alluded to through this post, I do think the Microbe Stage’s most unique aspect will be how dynamic the environment is. I anticipate this is something we want to exaggerate in the future, and will help drive a lot of variance for future playthroughs if we can maximize that potential there. Extending this point, once the Multicellular Stage begins development, I think we should really put a lot of intentional thought behind progression; making the Microbe Stage more volatile and dynamic, and making the Multicellular the more “deep”, optimization part of the Microscopic Stage.
Second point: we somewhat benefit from the label of being an unfinished game. Because many players understand that Thrive is being worked on, there’s a lot of roughness that they likely are excusing with the understanding that there is room for improvement. Like I alluded to above - if we rush too much without giving the proper polish to the stage, we run the risk of this backfiring on us.
Third: players who are experienced with Thrive form the majority of our community. I do understand making sure that this game is approachable to new players. But, now that we are largely feature complete and can ideally focus on optimization, we do seriously need to consider balancing in a way that toughens certain things up. We’ve often dismissed certain takes on concepts out of a fear of an upcoming feature potentially introducing too much complexity for new players - well, we’ve now reached the end of that train, and the game might not have enough depth for a decent-sized portion of our community.
More experienced players form the majority of our community and playerbase. They are the majority of our support, our momentum forward, and our goodwill. It is important that Thrive is approachable, but again, we really do need to make sure the game respects players who have the fundamentals down, who are looking for new takes and new challenges. We have implemented a new tutorial afterall, and have agreed that, as long as a player understands the basics of metabolism, we accept other challenges as something for them to figure out. Other in-depth simulators, like KSP, are renowned for being challenging.
This isn’t a huge uproar or anything in the community, so I’m not trying to say that our fans see the game negatively. But I have seen a bit more criticism recently lamenting that Thrive can have minimal replayability. We need to make sure that this isn’t a pervasive sentiment in the community - and, if it is, take corrective actions immediately.
I do recommend us considering that “two-polishing phase” timeline that I brought up earlier - select a few choice revisions right now, and accept that there will be a period of time after the Multicellular Stage where we really nail the progression behind the Microscopic Stage. And, ultimately, I do hope that posts like this encourage those very important discussions we need to have.
Regardless - if any volunteer programmer on the team does want to contribute to polishing Thrive, do please message me directly. There are numerous concepts we can discuss to increase the depth of certain areas in Thrive.
Also:
