Where to next? 0.9.0

First of all, let’s go over what we won’t be focusing on. I’ll keep making tweaks in these area’s as we go on, but the central feature of 0.9.0 won’t be any of the following:

Not Simulation Depth

Species has a viable simulation in it now. It’s got a long way to go yet, and there’s still lots and lots of neat features to implement, but in it’s current state with the new AI, it works. That’s probably the first time I’ve personally felt able to say that about it. It feels good.

If I could say the same about the rest of the game, I’d have no hesitation driving the development straight for even more complexity and depth… but I can’t. There are other area’s that don’t quite reach my idea of “viable,” so I feel like I ought to to address them first. Simulation depth won’t be the focus for 0.9.0.

Not Optimisation

Performance is also viable. It’s not great: much like simulation depth, there’s a lot of room for improvement. But it covers a large enough number of creatures on a wide enough variety of machines to be functional, and thanks to the new in-game world options, the player can take measures like reducing food efficiency to control the population and recover their fps.

In truth I tend to agree with the species forum users (there was a poll) that these elements of the game are very important, probably the Most Important, but the fact that they’re in a viable state while other elements are still half-arsed and placeholdery makes me think they need to take the back seat for 0.9.0.

So, with those off the table, which elements do I consider worth focusing on in the upcoming months?

User Interface

Species has a ‘semi-viable’ UI system. From the user’s perspective, it mostly works (there’s some design flaws, like the 3 modes, but it’s not too difficult to use). But from the programmers perspective, it’s a pile of crap: difficult to change and extend, impossible to modify without recompiling, and easy to break. It needs some work. A lot of my time between now and 0.9.0 will be taken up with overhauling it.

But that’s kinda boring.

So, to reveal the far more important focus for 0.9.0:

Gameplay Cycle

I consider Species current gameplay cycle completely non-viable.

This is a major problem, because gameplay cycles are a central pillar of game design. They’re everywhere: in X-Com you cycle between base management and field operations, in KSP you cycle between build and launch. Even in non-simulation games: shooters like Half Life cycle between puzzles and shooting, sandbox games like Saints Row switch between doing story missions and generally faffing about.

Species has some implicit gameplay cycles (most notably, observing the world 1x speed and running the simulation at 10x) and a load of disparate features (creature tools, ecosystem tools, gene editor), but none of it is tied together. It’s just a bunch of toys to play with, with no central thread.

So the foundation of 0.9.0 will be an attempt to give Species a proper gameplay cycle.

The centerpiece of this evil scheme will be Nursery, a small walled-off area where the player can keep their own Species.

Within the nursery, artificial selection will be far more efficient, relying less on the rovers somewhat indiscriminate feeding/culling and more on directly controlling which specimens get to reproduce (and culling those who don’t, if you’re impatient). This will allow you to rapidly customise your species through artificial selection, at least in comparison to the selection rate in the wild.

When you’re done customising, you can choose to release a few members of your Species into the wild. And it will be your species, too: the moment the population in the nursery speciates from the wild ones, the game will start tracking them and their descendants as the Player Species, and they will be highlighted on both the clade diagram and sat map.

This should generate two things: an implicit goal for players (create a species that can survive in the wild) and a gameplay cycle directly related to that goal (customise and release). Still no explicit goals, of course: the game is still fundamentally a sandbox. But it will provide a mechanism for implicit goals and player-imposed challenges: create a sustainable carnivore, create a sustainable herbivore, drive every wild clade extinct, create creatures that can do X, etc.

It also cements the rovers as more than just a game entity you can use to muck with things, like the creature tools and ecosystem controls are. The rovers and nursary belong to the world of Species, and have a history in it. We won’t be exploring too much of that backstory for 0.9.0, but I’ll try to remember to include a few hints in their design…

I’m actually fairly excited about all of this: the nursary and player species ties together a number of existing features and turns Species from a toy you play with into a game you play. Throw in the UI cleanup and maybe a few Clade Diagram improvements on the side, and we’ve got ourselves plenty of scope for an update.

All images shamelessly stolen from google images to prevent this post from being a boring wall of text.

  1. #1 by Dr.ZCochrane on June 12, 2015 - 3:49 pm

    The evolutionary equations in this talk are cool. Plus the talk is awsom.

    P.S. You guys ar great, you all deserve a million dollars to continue developing this game!

  2. #2 by Rubix30 on June 12, 2015 - 4:30 pm

    Best choices you could have made, in my opinion. 🙂

  3. #3 by Whishkey on June 13, 2015 - 6:02 am

    The Nursery seems like a really exciting idea! Players can now focus on something, rather than just watching the simulation fun. I’m hyped.

  4. #4 by Illordil on June 18, 2015 - 1:47 am

    Brilliant! I’ve been inspired recently, to design a new game type from the core of Kerbal Space Program and the whole ecosystem of mods, and integrate it with something that can make Kerbin, and the rest of the planets come alive 🙂

    Here’s where Species could provide the perfect cross-pollination opportunity…
    I don’t have the programming skills (or the time) to implement this ATM, but would love to see the new generations of games/digital worlds resulting from such a game 🙂

  5. #5 by SolarSpaceProbe on June 27, 2015 - 6:57 pm

    Oh, the stealing of Google images definitely worked. I linked them directly with the text and it kept me engaged. Pretty genius, really. I guess it’s like Randall Munroe’s “What If”. Sure, you can make the text interesting, but without some images to “reward” you as you move through, it becomes a chore to keep reading the more technical parts.

  6. #6 by Dave Grund on March 23, 2016 - 1:42 pm

    thank you for sharing that TED video. That blew my mind, but as an agnostic, I found it comforting. Question, do you feel that when we die, these questions will be answered? Or that in some currently unimaginable way, we’ll move closer to understanding more of the ‘Big Question’ (what is real/reality, i.e. ‘The Big Picture’)?

    I’m dying of curiosity as to what yours and others opinions are regarding this . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: