Rule #1 of Kickstarter projects: If you make an in-game trailer, make sure your game runs at more than 8 FPS.

...or no more than 0.1 FPS. Then it looks like a slideshow presentation.

You mean like with selfish genes and such ideas?

Hopefully not, as this is typically one of these games "about evolution" that actually teach "intelligent design" (with you as the intelligence teleologically nudging mutations in the right direction).

Again, player interaction defeats the point of illustrating passive accidental evolutions - but without them you get a video instead of a game. Or, at best, what is commonly called a "walking simulator" (which this project will probably end up as).

You could look at it like that, yes. Although it's meant to be a game where even intelligent design can get steamrolled because a comet hit and now some random ball of fur can survive where you get the shaft.
(okay, maybe not as much - it's very on-rails in what works now and what will later)

Having read science communicators and listened to probably a hundred people getting evolution dead wrong, I do thing player interaction is possible and would clear up several fundamental misconceptions ("survival of the fittest" my ass): change conditions and see which creatures get to live, which die out, and how traits spread in a population.

MMO? Nope, nothing for me. Which is sad, cause I read Dawkin`s "The God Delusion" with delight.

Ah yeah. That would be amusing.

Come to think of it, I now wonder if there were any theist models claiming that a god created us by channeling pure darwinian evolution through deliberate environment changes...

Don't really wanna buy anothing with Dawkins name on it. He's just too self-righteous and holy. Even for me.

The game looks kinda fun, though. The graphic reminds me of a screensaver I had in the nineties, with evolving 3D fractal-like shapes.

I'd rather play a God Game

I sincerely doubt Dawkins would let this happen or that would be quite ironic to say the least.

I'm curious what you mean by this.

Probably that "survival of the fittest" is a gross and misleading approximation. Here's a classic example: people with the sickle-cell trait can't be said to be fitter than a "normal" individual, but since they are less vulnerable to malaria, one can not dismiss them as "not fit enough for survival".

I shall make an offering and donate to this worthy cause.