Concerned over aware/awakening design philosophy

The issue here is that there is a clash between the modeling of species and the modeling of individuals - that what is fun for one may not be for the other. Playing as an individual is inevitably going to make players want more and better equipment, more speed, more agility, and more strength. And it may not be enough to simply shove some artificial RPG-style tradeoffs into the game. There are excellent strategies, such as high reproductive rate, hibernation, or moving in large herds so that predators only take the weak or sick, that do not create fun or meaningful first-person gameplay whatsoever. And what’s the priority here: creating a successful species, or fighting exhilarating battles and using super camouflage to hunt?

(Also, it would be tough to implement cooperative behaviors - displayed by many, many non-sapient animals here on Earth - without a strategic perspective.)

What’s the solution here? I do think that we should only control one individual of a non-social species at a time, but from a distance, like in a top-down RPG. We should also be engaged with the species as a whole, having information like birth/death rates, biomass, encounter outcomes, expansion across the planet, etc. I’d personally like the ability to switch to another individual at will.

I’m not sure if these issues have been already discussed extensively, so please don’t tear me to shreds if I’m butting into an old controversy!


The idea has always been to have those stages be in third person IIRC tho. But the RTS perspective is planned to be unlocked once you either evolve a certain hivemind, or unlock the corresponding research.

1 Like

Wait, really? I thought it was intended to be like Spore’s creature stage. :flushed:

Yeah, that’s called third person. First person is when you look out of the eyes of whatever you’re playing as

1 Like

What about second person? oOoOOooOOo

No, that’s first person view. First-person gameplay is directly controlling a character; more than simply directing him to go somewhere or attack, you have to control them directly, make him walk or run, press the button to swing the sword, etc.

All I’m saying is that a problem crops up if the game is built around having that level of control.

…that’s simply not true

Basically, video games like call of duty and battlefield are first person shooters, and video games like gta and assassin’s creed are third person . The difference is that First Person Shooter games show the game play from the character’s point of view. Third Person Shooter games put the camera behind the character.

Literally the first result on google


Huh, I didn’t know that at all. Just assumed first-person meant controllable character for some reason.

Well, the point still stands if we’re going to directly control a single creature’s actions, beyond some basic click orders.

I guess “second person” is when you’re a species that taps into other organisms’ nervous systems for sensory input.

… That’d make for a terrifying, but easily-avoided horror monster. Unless some idiot doesn’t get the memo and watches it over the security cameras.

1 Like

I agree that rts perspective should be available sooner for highly social creatures. But I’m not sure wether making it available for everyone would actually change people’s play styles. Sure, playing a hibernating herbivore might not be as popular as being an apex predator, but what would a different perspective change about that? You’re still a hibernating herbivore, just one that you can control in a slightly different way.
To me, it seems kind of inevitable that most people will play ‘cooler’ creatures, regardless of what the aware stage ends up looking like.

1 Like

This is a non-issue with no solution. Yes, a great many people will likely play as “cool” creatures that never make it to space, but many will still choose to go for optimal herd creatures or anything else. Making a stage less focused on individual fun to make later stages more likely to occur doesn’t seem like something to bother with. I actually somewhat like the idea that someone could focus on playing this individual creature stage and either never figure out that their creatures can’t evolve like that or later changing their playstyle to achieve higher stages. If someone wants to muck about in one stage forever, good for them. Even making the game seem less focused on individual members of the race but as a a single part in a whole would change little about how people play (they would likely still want the part of a whole to be “cool” even if it’s just a small part in a visibly greater whole, which would equate in many heads to a “cooler” whole), so I see no reason this would help. Genuinly, I don’t see some percentage of people sticking to one stage as a real problem. Still, I can see where you’re coming from; what makes an individual powerful does not necessarily translate to making a sapient horde successful. I just don’t think devs should be overly concerned with a gameplay style that doesn’t make the game invalid; so long as it’s still possible to get to higher stages (as in, the mechanics are there) and the stages function as intended, people not reaching them or staying in them for one reason or another is their own problems or choices (unless, as stated, it’s impossible or incredibly difficult for someone to reach the next stage even if they are doing everything right; this isn’t meant to be a broken rage game after all).

No, I’m completely on board with players having the option of staying in one stage for as long as they please. Where’d you get the idea that I wasn’t?

I took your statement that this stage’s theorised mechanics would encourage players to (at least subconsciously) prioritize their individual controlled member of their species to the detriment of their species advancement as a whole to be you saying that if the mechanics for this stage to be a functionally single(ish) character player-made-story game were present as evidence that you wanted to prioritize mechanics that encourage advancement over the fun factor of the individual phase.

No, I’m saying that certain strategies that make sense in terms of genetic survival (what evolution is all about, remember) wouldn’t be fun for individuals.

This isn’t just aware vs awakening - immotile plant gameplay could also be an adaptation that sacrifices action for genetic survival.
That is the extreme of that dichotomy. There are very few actions that a plant can do, given what it is.
Switching to a RTS-style game mode in that case could make a fun game, even if “spread seeds” and “mutate” are the only options available.
I guess even Checkers has strategic depth despite the few possible unique actions, but the choice comes in positioning.

1 Like