Overall, I perceive one potential problem in the operational basis in your world model: In short, the basic operative scope of movement and mating is fertile, but dangerously limited. Caution: the following might seem to be conducted with an overtly dreary style of analysis, but I would insist on it due to the aspects it can bring forth as concerning gameplay (and, for the record, I consider our evolutionary model a form of gameplay).
One aspect that I estimate is relevant here (retrospective editing: I actually had a couple but I've written too much already):
Almost every gamelike choice, or move, is an interplay between indexed accumulation, preferably consisting of multiple instances, and the situation or state of gaming system (whether this is conceived as a world or not).
To concretize the above: Think of a typical bare-bones, turn based computer rpg; the decision to take an action, whatever it may be, always stems from the character or the party that is reflected on the situation: Press on, or go back to the town (are the characters wounded; how dangerous is the environment)? Who takes the new vorpal sword (Cugel is fastest, he could cut the most heads, but he is also weak, so he would be in at risk)?
The basis of decisions is the accumulated and maintained knowledge of the party and characters, which are simply constellations of accessable indexes: Hit points, speed, strenght etc. form the character, which, in an overlaying constellation, form the party. The indexes provide orientation to the process: one can reflect on the issue from the viewpoint of strength, then compare that to hit points etc. The party/constellation filters and processes the situation: the indexes perceived relevant are reflected upon, in relation (the fighter has five hit points, should I pull him back - but that would put the bard up front and has no strength to take the pounding etc.).
This is basic gameplay, and its heavily dependent on the game structure that not only accumulates data, but also systematically indexes it in a constellation that develops into the basic structure that frames and defines the gameplay process itself.
What does all this has to do with your project? Well, I would consider it critical that you systemize the accumulative elements. That is, not simply produce evolution and then simply entrust the experience of it to the player's memory, without a systemizing the accumulative development it provides. Also, preferably, there should be different forms accumulation and a constant interplay between them. This would also offer you a much richer basis of producing interaction between different players. (note: KyperiaOntology as an systemizing attempt should take this into account! --antont)
Games like Unreal Tournament can base themselves on a fairly simplified gameplay forms (especially in deathmatch) because of strong and complicated (i.e. requiring constant, heavy processing from the player) visuals, aggressive sound etc. Additionally, they have a complication layer in the constant motoric nimbleness and coordination required from the player; there is no need for complication in the game-form, the players already have their hands (eyes, ears) full. Neither of these areas that UT and its like rely on will probably not be your major asset, especially in the mobile interface.
So, I think its fairly risky to rely on mating as the only form of structured (coded) interaction; the impetus behind continued interest is a base complex enough that it can avoid the perception of the dominating pattern in the interaction and the diminishing returns this inevitably leads to (you know the experience of getting bored with a game, and how drastic and quick this can be).
pekkok
GamePlay --antont, 2003/10/22 01:05 EET reply
surely there must be other functionalities, depending on the particular world (hence the avatars used, potential actions etc) - therefore the weight of designing GamePlay has been noted but not elaborated yet, so thanks for the input and let's try to build this into what we need.