You know what, I think he's right. I saw the demo thing for it where it showed things like the water level, and the science of it got me really hyped for the game and I really wanted it. I also really enjoy it how it is but if it was like I saw it in the demo it would be much more fun for me.

Count me among the many who wanted the game shown in 2005. I was expecting more "Black and White" and less cookie cutter RTS for dummies.

I also expected a more evolutionary gameplay with explicit tactics and strategies depending on how your creature is designed.

For me, this vision of a Spore that actually DEPENDS on how your creature is designed is still not impossible to become true.

I believe that Maxis is still capable of re-introducing this by a major change in the stats of parts and procedures that analyse your designs.

And about all that worries, that there can be uber-creatures or poor creatures: Hey, thats life, and you can't always be the best creature on your planet. Just work on a balance system for pupulating eco-systems in the creature stage and work on balancing the difficulty-levels. Keep in mind, that on easy-mode, the opponent's don't perform at 100 % and on hardcore mode you really have to design a really well-performing creature. Even exploits don't matter because that small amount of possible exploits can be patched because it is only a matter of code how the program handles different procedures or part-combinations and on the other hand - I don't care if there are some uber-creatures on my planet. We all know, you can't be always on top of food-chain.

Furthermore work on a balance of the DNA-points, as mflux said ... you have to really think about the design and parts you want to buy with your points. And as every player starts with a small amount of dna-points and small creatures, the sporepedia has enough weaker creations to populate ecosystems, as long as all the evolutionary steps are uploaded. Only one of the final creations near the end of creature stage is kind of uber.

Also consider the fact of a growing brain. Why not being able to chose whether putting dna-points into body-parts or dna-points into brain? With this option a creature can be more intelligent or have better senses of it's environment but weaker body-structure. Implement a system, where brain-size matters also, where you get bonuses on tasks you perform. For example interacting with objects like wood branches or stones or having a bigger pack of fellow critters etc.

This can also lead to a system, where Maxis sets a limit of maximal reachable DNA-points (plus some hidden options to get extra points). And with that maximal points you CAN NOT buy all the parts AND a big Brain. So you have to decide if you want to evolve brain or body next. Or which parts you may rip off in order to get to the tribal phase by becoming intelligent. This would easily prevent players from having uber-uber creations and there will always be a mixture of body-orientated and brain-orientated critters in the sporepedia.

Furthermore this system could also define some pros and cons of your creature in tribal or civ and space game. Depending on how your creature looks like when entering tribal stage, the program can analyze the creature and give you certain abilities or penallties. Like being less innovative with smaller brain, meaning you invent technologies slower. Or being able to grab fruits from high trees in tribal stage, or having advantages in close combat due to strength etc etc.

Of course this means re-introducing a lot of stats and completely re-designing the code for analyzing creatures and ca lculatingtheir performances in certain situations ...

"I mean hey, every Sim from the Sims has more stats and personality and features to interact and behave differently from each other than any Spore creature."

But, as mflux said ... Maxis once was on exactly this way ... so I hope it is possible for them to go back on this track step by step ... and hopefully they will do this. Giving us a GAME worth playing, and not only an EDITOR, worth creating.

Spore at the moment is 95 % an editor and 5 % a game.
Because the only thing i do in my game right now is redesigning planets and creations. Even selling spice is not neccesary for using the planet design tools, as they are for free once you bought them.

I hope someone agrees with me on that

must bump

I think he is right, the gameplay has crashed since they started making it...

bump

Very powerful points made, I will reiterate on Felix78's comment:

95% editor, 5% game.

My thread suggests online play- check it out for yourselves if you get a chance- but that's neither here nor there.

I also agree with the idea of 'meaningful-morphology', I believe that when players are given criteria and boundaries they are more creative than they could be without such limits. Take for example the child- if you tell the child they can make any art project out of any materials in the world, they will hand you a wad of glue, glitter, and plastic jewels. However, if you give the child limits, such as limited supplies and a certain goal, they can make something worth keeping around. Morphology adds the realistic dimention that a lot of creatures lack, it's the difference between a rediculous, overly-complex creature, and an elegant yet practical one.

Thanks to the intern who started this up, you sir deserve a raise and a small round of applause. Since I can't give you either, have some virtual cookies

/give virtualcookies

-Adersick

Personally I agree to the guy.

bump

YOur talking about a spore game with more scientific accuracy gravity and limb length affect instead of "+ 3 dash" a science spore would be awesome and there could be one and im so sorry your original image got kicked out...Maxis just has a teen audience in mind..

I so agree with everything said. Intern or not, you made some good points. I want it to be more realistic.

I read that first post about how the creature stage could've been, and I almost cried.

I want to go to that parallel world and play that Spore. Someone take me.

Anybody...

AyaReiko wrote:If many of these things stayed in the game, I probably would've never uninstalled it.

I doubt Spore will get more than one expansion and C&C Parts Pack will probably be the only Parts Pack, both of which was probably planned before Spore's launch. Partly because the general consensus is not very positive about the game. (It really is racking up the Disappointment of the Year awards.) But mostly because The Sims 3 comes out in about 2 months. Most, if not all, of Maxis's resources will be devoted to the Sims franchise.

EXCELLENT POST.


Beautifully stated; simple, to the point.

I take no pleasure in watching a game wither away and die as Spore is doing now with naked attempts at brand expansion like "Spore Hero", abortive attempts at player retention like "Galactic Adventures", and bone-throws to the self-professed fans like the initially over-priced parts pack which was surely the first of others to come.


(bumped)

<--- Check my registered date.
Now check my Sporepedia account and note the last day of user activity.


I spent more than two years regularly looking up information on this game, dutifully watching any and all new publicity videos released, all public demonstrations, all interviews, all articles...

...and I spent about two weeks actually playing the game before I closed it for the last time and decided it wasn't worth running on my PC ever again.


I wanted to love this game...and part of me still does, I suppose that's why I'm spending any amount of time here right now.



I don't think EA or Maxis are "evil". I don't think they intentionally wanted to crush the hopes and dreams of eager gamers everywhere. I don't think they're cackling like witches and high-fiving each other when they read posts like this.

I *do* think that companies are motivated by profit like an indifferent force of nature; they have to be. Like water, they find the path of least resistance.

Whatever it was that resulted in a dev team's mistakes, lack of vision, or inability to step back and view their game from different perspectives, it wasn't a lack of resources, employees, funding, or support from EA. Maybe it was group-think, maybe they grew to love the concept so much they had already biased themselves and all become their own Yes-Men, I don't know.

Maybe, just maybe, Maxis and EA realized that the vision being offered by the 2005 demo was too complex, too "niche", too "overwhelming" for the average gamer, and they adjusted and refocused their development path in order to capture a wider audience and a bigger sales potential...in other words, to play to the lowest common denominator.

There was CONSTANT talk of Spore as a "franchise" in interviews, as the "beginning of a new brand".


I don't think Will Wright was lying when he said in an interview not long after Spore's release that he was happy with higher sales and mediocre reviews rather than stellar reviews and mediocre sales. He pretty much let the cat out of the bag there, and that was that.

"Meh" was fine, just along as lots of people bought it.


Problem is, you don't really make a successful brand without staying power, and a mediocre game perceived as a bitter disappointment by at least a significant and vocal portion of the enthusiast gaming community isn't likely to be a successful brand years down the road as Sim City or the The Sims became.


Spore is more or less dead in the water, and I seriously doubt that there will be further significant allocation of development resources for gameplay expansions or major game enhancements beyond the upcoming Galactic Adventures release. The most we're likely to see in the months and years ahead are additional themed parts packs or minor addons for Galactic Adventures (which will NOT be free).

After that, people will move on to other projects and abandon Spore (as Will Wright has wisely already done), though the game and the Sporepedia will remain in use as creative tools, which is really all Spore is; a 3D creation tool. An accomplishment to be sure, but it's not a "game", heck it's not even an experience.


I'm sure that some day some developer out there will make the kind of game that Spore COULD have been; a game that does justice to the wonders of evolutionary biology and the vastness of the cosmos....and not only that, but a game that actually has more than skin deep gameplay and complexity.

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which such a development team would get as much financial backing and support as Maxis did to create a game of such potential scope, and I'm not holding my breath, but I'm positive it will happen some day.

Spore wasn't that game.

This post seems to support a lot of what I expected, about how the dev team changed the direction of the game. What I just don't understand though, is the logic of it. It sounds like what they decided to do was ditch gameplay elements in favor of players using their imagination.

Maybe its just me, but I haven't played make-believe in a long time. I can't get into the sort of roleplaying that goes on in the community showcase board. I can't pretend the game is any more than it is. I don't want to tell a story, I want to be challenged. I need gameplay. It's what gaming is all about to me, not some sort of Montessori ideal. That might have been great when I was 6, but now, not so much.

Speaking of the Montessori method (as mentioned by Will Wright) I'm not sure how much good it'd even do a six-year-old, when challenges are removed, so that the kid can succeed no matter what. "Storytelling" my SPORE.

DernGalaxyfist wrote:YOur talking about a spore game with more scientific accuracy gravity and limb length affect instead of "+ 3 dash" a science spore would be awesome and there could be one and im so sorry your original image got kicked out...Maxis just has a teen audience in mind..

don't you mean toddler image?