On pages 741 and 742, Farmer and Morningstar talk about how they were surprised by how quickly the players were figuring out their puzzles. They expected the activity to take days, while some guy figured out the secret in 15 minutes and beat the challenge by himself, leaving all of the other players without a game to play. They go on to say that as the players swamped the levels, they (the designers) lost more and more control, as the players started to have a significant impact in the way the game was being played.
Reading about this brought me back to being a counselor at summer camp. As counselor, my primary job is to take care of the kids, but I'm also required to come up with all sorts of fun activities, games, and events. In a way, I get to be a game designer. I usually get a topic and a time limit, but other than that, I can come up with any game I want to make the kids play. Over the years I've figured out how to balance a game, but there's always that one time that the campers figure out some creative way to get around restrictions and beat the game more quickly that I had intended.
The two environments are definitely different, but they share similar evolutionary tendencies. In Habitat, the players interact with their environment for a long period of time, while the summer camp games have a specific time limit. In both environments, the players are allowed a certain degree of freedom and the designers are able to change the game midway through. The players' degree of freedom allows them to impact the designers' next choice. In both environments, the designers have a strong incentive to mold their game to the players' desires, because they want them to have a good experience and continue playing the game. Technologies evolve because people use them, find things about them to change, have the freedom to express their suggestions, and are able to communicate with designers who have the power to change the technology into something better.