Hi, Everyone.

I'm designing a Creature Capture Game and I would like to hear your take on the different possible evolution system for it, and, if you're a Pokemon or Digimon fan, why you like their evolution system.

So I have 3 takes on the evolution system:

• Drained System (this is my original idea): For this one the creatures have multiple Evolutions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) that they stay in (like Pokemon Evolutions) once they get to a certain level. Then, if there energy depletes, they devolve into a “Drained" form that's weaker. They remain in this form until you heal them, then they evolve back into whichever stage of the evolution they were before.
• Digimon-like System: For this one the creatures would have a base form (like Rookie in Digimon) and then evolve when their energy increases enough, or devolves when they lose too much energy. Then they revert back to rookie once the “battle” (or in my case, race) is over.
• Pokemon-Like System: For this one the creatures would evolve at certain levels and remain there for the game.

Thank you

Your original idea sounds fine. Why don't you think it's how you should go?

@Tom Sloper My main worry about it was that if the person really likes the Drained Form, they would not be able to use it all the time. It would only appear essentially when they are losing. Like with Pokemon they can keep their creature as any form they want for entire game.

I have an idea for an item that would devolve the creature permanently into their Drained for as a work around for this issue, but I just wasn't sure if it would be a fun idea.

Aowood said:
I just wasn't sure if it would be a fun idea.

The usual method to find out if something is fun is to try it.

If programming and testing is too much, you can make a paper prototype and test that.

@Tom Sloper Fair enough lol

All three suggested systems, and many others, make sense, but only Pokémon-style irreversible progress should be called an “evolution”: transient, reversible changes like being hurt and being healed (1) or accumulating and spending “energy” (2) are only something that comes and goes during play, like positioning or choosing different moves. Changing creature stats and appearance is only a detail.

Telling the player that their creatures “evolve” implies some expectations:

• that the creatures get permanent improvements (possibly overspecialized, and possibly sacrificing old features), not downgrades
• that upgrades form an upgrade tree requiring some long term planning
• that upgrades need to be earned with an equally long term investment of experience or resources
• that there are combos and diminishing returns making some upgrades undesirable

Temporary changes could still be an important, dramatic game mechanic. For example:

• Hurt creatures could be a lucky event, if the normal outcome of a mishap is that they are dead/crashed/KO.
• Healing creatures could be a big deal because it requires significant effort or important resources (for example, going to a hospital or consuming a limited stock item in a Pokémon game)
• Accumulating energy could be difficult, dangerous or unlikely, and spending it could be proportionally devastating.

Shoot'em up games offer many examples of different character forms, some evolutions and some not:

• Pickup items that increase firepower for the current weapon
• Pickup items that add a weapon (often temporary)
• Pickup items that change the current weapon
• The button in Ikaruga that switches the ship freely between white and black: identical, but immune to the opposite bullet colour
• Buttons that activate a special, superpowered "mode" that consumes limited resources (and can frequently be cancelled early to dspend frugally)
• Bombs and limited use attacks
• Accumulating and/or losing to enemy fire optional ship parts

LorenzoGatti said:
All three suggested systems, and many others, make sense, but only Pokémon-style irreversible progress should be called an “evolution”

Not necessarily. Even Pokemon introduces Mega Evolutions, which only last for the duration of a fight. Sure, its only a subset of evolutions in those games, and I personally also like the idea of permanent upgrade; but whether or not you call something “evolution” based on if its permanent or not shouldn't really matter. And if somebody wants to have evolutions with “charges” or a way to lose that evolution temporarily or permanently again, sure, why not.