I wrote this as a brief thought train due to some discussions on the community and developer discords. I don’t really see this being reasonably expanded upon for like 10 years, but I think it has some nice ideas, so I wanted to share. If nothing else, it’ll give some sort of discussion to point our insisting society-stage and onwards fans towards.
———
How will the later stages of a game look, where you will be controlling a civilization instead of an organism? A big and unanswerable question currently, but to get a better idea, we must reflect on what exactly Thrive is and isn’t as a game.
The Society Stage onwards is a bit of a different game design question due to the fact that there are a great number of strategy games focused on the progression of a society - a human, Earthly society. We have a lot more examples of what makes a good civilization-management game, so we tend to think of things on that context. Cities, armies, resources, a map, culture and science trees, etc.
But we cannot just be another “civ-game”. There is a larger philosophical/design crucible at play here, but there is a more immediate consideration too: there are other fabled, legendary franchises, like Age of Empires, Civ, Total War, and Crusader Kings, that have nailed a formula down so well, that a familiar strategy game repackaged with random organisms just won’t have anything to offer. We can make something fun of course, but I sincerely doubt we will outperform or “take enough inspiration” from these older franchises enough to make the player think that our game is fun. Eventually, they might think “why should I play this one, when these older and more established games with the same mechanics exists in a way that will probably be more in depth?”
Furthermore, with the amount of effort and detailed mechanics required towards making a groundbreaking 4X game, I think swinging fully into a “strategy game just reskinned with different organisms” will take away a lot of connection to and meaning for the prior stages of Thrive.
But, the larger point: the common assumption and thread unsettling each of these games is a representation of HUMAN history and culture. Rationalism is an ideal that is based on human forms of rational; romanticism accentuates individuality in a human sense: an aqueduct was made by humans for organisms with human-needs: subsistence farming was oriented towards our own diet; our settling patterns are a result of our biological tendencies. Other 4X games model themselves off our own civilization and its history, but that is not a luxury we can fully replicate in Thrive. Because if we do, are we really representing the effects of evolution adequately?
My ultimate point is: our concepts of political systems, societal contracts, philosophy, interconnection, and ultimately, self, have such a ubiquitous impact on our history that assuming these fundamental ideals to be very similarly present in Thrive, for organisms with completely different characteristics, would be counteractive to the game we are trying to make. If we are a game that is meant to represent the evolution of an organism from sludge to the stars, our focus isn’t fully on making a good 4X game - we have to set ourselves apart in some capacity.
Of course, it is important to note that our only reference to concepts and a society is limited to our own species. We can’t truly account for every possible difference in foundational concepts that underpin our civilization. And ultimately, there are some hard bounds. Having a civilization which reaches industrialization likely requires the utilization of energy and heat, starting with fire and likely utilizing harvested resources. Even if an organism is entirely carnivorous, irrigation will be beneficial to research because the things you eat need to eat something too. So it’s not like we entirely have to be hippies that ditch the roofs over our head and act snobby towards other 4X games. We just need to represent an aspect of society which other games tend to not worry about so extensively.
I don’t have any hard-set recommendations. But you know me, I always think some general guidelines and principles can be helpful for any little thing. What could be some takeaways we consider when it comes to conceptualizing the the societal stages?
-
Culture should be REALLY important and definitive to your game, and I think it should receive the bulk of conceptual attention. It won’t only be something that you can shrug off as long as you are making cultural buildings and slightly tweak for some bonuses, like +5 stability, +3 combat strength, etc. And it’s not just the “we are a more liberal society with oligarchic influences, giving us economic bonuses” culture, it’s the “we give birth to dozens of children at once and do not give much paternal support beyond the first year, so we have an immense infant mortality rate and a cut-throat society - how will that influence our attitudes towards social networks, technologies, and the way we settle?” type of culture. The way your organism thinks, influenced by its evolution, will have an immense effect on the rest of your gameplay. As such, a big part of designing the game should focus on exactly how this culture shows up, is influenced, and how it manifests itself.
-
We might consider a different type of “character” in the societal stages than as is traditional in the strategy genre. Most games have you control a civilization or a faction, but a focus on culture opens up different possibilities - as well as the need to transition towards the space age. I do ultimately think we should have the player control a specific group of people, but given the focus on culture, and the nature of empires rising and falling throughout most of human history, maybe “losing” and “winning” should be defined differently. Perhaps your existence shouldn’t fully be tied to a specific “empire”, but to a culture or a people. In effect, being conquered won’t necessarily be a loss. It is important though not to turn this into a “you can’t really lose/can’t encounter setbacks” stage, as that would be somewhat boring.
I ultimately think that the societal stage onwards, and even a bit of the awakening stage adding some flair, should serve as a continuous story of your species - a break from you taking control of a succession of species as you fight for a place on the planet. You’ve secured a spot, and should worry a bit less about complete extinction; now, the focus is on the trials and tribulations of an individual species.
Across the sci-fi genre, there are always aliens with unique and interesting backstories which give the universe depth and flair. And I ultimately think that a goal we can set out for these stages is that once the player reaches a societal stage, they essentially are writing their backstory, influencing their current gameplay.
In Halo for example, you fight a religious, fanatical, and technologically advanced coalition of alien species. One species in this alliance, the Sangheili, are the most skilled fighters, coming from a feudalistic society influenced by their predatory nature. Their home planet is arid, so control over resources encouraged the development of a very power-centered society. They are skilled fighters and immensely intelligent, but as a result of their relatively brutal culture, have a strict and sometimes restrictive sense of morality. They may give their opponents time to prepare for an honorable fight, have a disdain for doctors and prefer to die rather than getting captured or injured, and have a strict sense of loyalty. Another species, the Kig-Yar, had very loose economic federations based on their historical clans and a tendency for piracy. Their home planet was very oceanic, necessitating a more mercantilist and occasionally illicit view on the exchange of goods, which stays with them to this day.
I think if we can get Thrive to having aspects of storytelling similar to this, we will have a solid set of societal stages to justify the inclusion of more traditional 4X mechanics.