Many years ago I made a small "game", there was 20x20 map and up to 100 creatures (it was an ancient computer so the performance was an issue :)). These creatures were moving around the map (completely random) and breed or eat grass. Each grid had certain amount of grass (which increased/regrow each turn), the creatures had "chewing" stat which determined how much they could devour per turn. There were also other stats like "breeding cost" (how much food is required to give birth to an offspring), "max age" (after how many turns the creature will die), "virus resistance" (if you pressed 'v' key, there was a disease and all creatures that failed virus resist check died instantly), "temperature resistance" (if you pressed 't' key, there was a solar flare and all creatures that failed temperature resist check died instantly). When two creatures (of any kind, there was no gender) meet they could produce an offspring (using up stored/digested food). The new creature had average of all stats of both parents +/- 1 (mutation).

I observed many fascinating things (like the breeding cost increasing when I did a lot of disasters - under peaceful conditions the breeding cost and max age were the stats that were going up), note that there was no algorithm or AI of any kind, just pure probability that driven the artificial evolution. I was mesmerized by it.

Generally, not much of a game, nothing to do and overall boring. But... Somehow I enjoyed it. More watching than playing (end turn, inspect a creature, look at the map (full of 8x8 pixel almost identical icons), v/t key for a disaster; and that's all).

I wonder, is this idea worth pursuing? Is it worth trying to make a small game with this premise (generally, there is no problem making it more rich and complex, but the player's input would still be low)?

I see two issues with this kind of game, neither of which is all that serious. First, as you describe it it sounds like a simulation with very little "game" aspect to it. Fun as a toy, but without some awfully deep simulation the emergent behaviors that would interest me would run out pretty quickly. Second, and relatedly, it can be hard to include enough variables to allow for interesting and unplanned behaviors while still being balanced enough to produce diverse behaviors. But that second piece sounds like a lot of fun to sort out

Many years ago I made a small "game", there was 20x20 map and up to 100 creatures (it was an ancient computer so the performance was an issue ). These creatures were moving around the map (completely random) and breed or eat grass. Each grid had certain amount of grass (which increased/regrow each turn), the creatures had "chewing" stat which determined how much they could devour per turn. There were also other stats like "breeding cost" (how much food is required to give birth to an offspring), "max age" (after how many turns the creature will die), "virus resistance" (if you pressed 'v' key, there was a disease and all creatures that failed virus resist check died instantly), "temperature resistance" (if you pressed 't' key, there was a solar flare and all creatures that failed temperature resist check died instantly). When two creatures (of any kind, there was no gender) meet they could produce an offspring (using up stored/digested food). The new creature had average of all stats of both parents +/- 1 (mutation).

I observed many fascinating things (like the breeding cost increasing when I did a lot of disasters - under peaceful conditions the breeding cost and max age were the stats that were going up), note that there was no algorithm or AI of any kind, just pure probability that driven the artificial evolution. I was mesmerized by it.

Generally, not much of a game, nothing to do and overall boring. But... Somehow I enjoyed it. More watching than playing (end turn, inspect a creature, look at the map (full of 8x8 pixel almost identical icons), v/t key for a disaster; and that's all).

I wonder, is this idea worth pursuing? Is it worth trying to make a small game with this premise (generally, there is no problem making it more rich and complex, but the player's input would still be low)?

I have been wanting to do some kind of simulations for a while. The initial spark was from Conway's game of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life) when I saw it a few years ago. I have a few ideas but never get to complete it. My last attempt of this kind of simulation was posted here as well (http://www.gamedev.net/topic/642857-pixel-garden-prototype/). It was a total random idea I made in 2 days. I didn't see any way to make it more interesting so I stopped there.

Perhaps you could post what you had then. I am quite interested to see what you have =)

Acharis, on 22 Jul 2013 - 9:54 PM, said:


I observed many fascinating things (like the breeding cost increasing when I did a lot of disasters - under peaceful conditions the breeding cost and max age were the stats that were going up),

Were the different stats tied to each other in some way ? (was there a max total stat?)

I think the player's input/interaction (the lack of it) is the biggest issue with such a game. Also, the whole concept of "evolution" implies non ingerention (that's why it was fun, it was doing "itself").

BTW, have any of you played Spore? I didn't, but it could have some similar premise, I think; althrough I have heard it's a disappoint game. If you played it, maybe post something that could be related?

The game sounds interesting, do you know what it's called? I'd like to read a wiki on something like that.

And I've been looking into making an evolution type of game, this sounds really interesting ... It is something I'd like to play