Intelligent Design: An Evolutionary Sandbox

About

"Intelligent Design: An Evolutionary Sandbox" is a simulation game that allows players to create and modify a variety of ecosystems and organisms. Design and evolve creatures with unique abilities, behaviors, and appearances using an intuitive design tool. Observe how your creations adapt to environmental challenges and compete or cooperate with other species in a dynamic, ever-changing world. **Approximately 256 characters

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

Intelligent Design: An Evolutionary Sandbox screenshot

68%

Audience ScoreBased on 164 reviews

graphics4 positive mentions

music2 negative mentions

The game has a unique and interesting concept that allows players to create and observe ecosystems, which can be rewarding.
Players who enjoy tinkering with genetics and experimenting with different species may find the gameplay engaging and fun.
The game offers a casual experience where players can take their time to explore and develop their ecosystems without pressure.

The user interface is poorly designed, making it difficult to navigate and understand the game's mechanics.
The game lacks sufficient feedback and information about genetic traits, leading to confusion and frustration for players.
Performance issues arise when populations grow, causing significant lag and detracting from the overall experience.

graphics
40 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
10%
83%
8%
The graphics of the game are generally described as simplistic and unpolished, lacking modern standards and aesthetic variety, which may detract from the overall experience for some players. While the visuals are not particularly noteworthy, they are considered to fit the game's style and can be charming in their own right. Many reviewers express a desire for improved graphical detail and better UI to enhance gameplay and convey necessary information more effectively.
- “The graphics are simple and the UI is a bit rough, but the music, atmosphere, and core game concept are all lovely.”
- “Graphically simple, but quite pleasantly charming.”
- “The graphics may be simple, but the game is definitely enjoyable to watch.”
- “The downsides are in the simple graphics and unpolished UI.”
- “Had I met this little game ten years ago, I'd have played the hell out of it; as it stands, it doesn't really have anything 'bad', it simply does not stand up to modern gaming standards, both graphics-wise and gameplay-wise.”
- “I would like to see a bit more transparency around the genetics side of things, and I would like to see some more aesthetic variety on the life forms - which tend to be represented by quite simply polygonal shapes - but it's early days yet, and these things may come.”
gameplay
36 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
58%
8%
Gameplay is characterized by a mix of intriguing mechanics focused on genetics and evolution, but many players find these mechanics unintuitive and poorly explained. While the game offers a casual or chaotic experience depending on player preference, it suffers from linearity and a lack of feedback, leading to frustration. Despite its potential for depth and critical thinking, the overall execution feels outdated and may not meet modern gaming standards.
- “If you do like to tinker with your own species and enjoy the results for 5-15 hours of gameplay, you should buy it :).”
- “Gameplay seems simple, but is complex at times as you finagle with genetic manipulation.”
- “This is very much a 'sit down and sink your teeth into the mechanics' kind of game, and it is very, very much focused on genetics, evolution, adaptation, and extinction.”
- “The mechanics are fairly well researched, though they are not intuitive to the average player in the slightest.”
- “This obscurity around one of the key mechanics is infuriating, as even in an 'explore it for yourself' style game, one mess of one of these genes could create a species that annihilates your entire biosphere.”
- “There is zero feedback you can get from the creatures, and everything is very linear it seems, focusing more on a poorly designed gameplay loop than any sort of simulation.”
optimization
22 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
73%
14%
The game suffers from significant optimization issues, particularly when handling large populations, which can lead to severe performance drops due to its lack of multithreading capabilities. While recent optimization updates have improved performance, players still report that the game struggles with complex calculations, especially on less powerful machines. Suggestions for further optimization include simplifying graphics for larger populations to enhance performance.
- “There are goals (called key performance targets) to accomplish, but they're pretty open and involve things like building research stations and researching the different genes you can modify in organisms.”
- “** Note there's now been additional optimization passes - game performance has been upgraded.”
- “Graphics optimization is important, especially since the magic happens with big populations; perhaps the plants can just be represented by 2D circles instead of 3D cylinders.”
- “All in all, this is a fairly simple-looking game, but not very optimized for what it needs to do. Especially when populations start going into the thousands, the game grinds down to a snail's pace or worse. This is because of the many calculations going on while the game is not multithreaded, leaving it incapable of processing its own data at a fast enough rate. Besides that, if you keep populations low enough (the amount depends on your PC's CPU power), you will have a fun time for a while.”
- “Game has severe performance issues when things get busy.”
- “I really like this idea and where this is heading, but I unfortunately feel as though the performance issues combined with the sheer lack of information given to the player is a problem.”
music
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
17%
50%
33%
The music in the game receives mixed reviews; while some players find it unremarkable and overshadowed by poor voice acting and annoying sound effects, others appreciate its contribution to the overall atmosphere and core game concept. Overall, the audio experience is described as lacking, with minimal sound beyond the music itself.
- “The music, atmosphere, and core game concept are all lovely.”
- “Sound - voices are absolutely hideous, every menu action makes an annoying pop, music is nothing special.”
- “Audio is almost non-existent apart from some music.”
story
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The story has been criticized for its poor method of delivery, leading to an inability to effectively rate its quality.
- “Finally, I can't rate their story as the method of delivery is so poor.”
replayability
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Users indicate that the game's replayability is limited due to a straightforward science and research progression system, suggesting that players may only restart for the sake of trying different approaches rather than a compelling reason to replay.
- “Replayability is yet to be seen; with the current science and research system, progression is really straightforward. Short of trying a different approach just for the sake of variety, I'm not sure how often I'll want to start new games.”
- “Replayability is questionable; the current science and research system makes progression quite linear. Unless I decide to try a different strategy purely for the sake of change, I doubt I'll frequently want to restart.”
atmosphere
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The atmosphere of the game is praised for its lovely music and engaging core concept, despite the graphics being simple and the user interface feeling somewhat rough. Overall, the ambiance contributes positively to the gaming experience.
- “The music, atmosphere, and core game concept are all lovely.”