PlasteredDragon wrote:
Thank you for coming forward and taking responsibility for this farce. I'm going to have to consider very carefully the next Will Wright game that hits the market--wait for (customer) reviews and such. But at least I will consider it.

Looks like he "Pulled a Molyneux", eh?

Actually, that's what I want more than an expansion pack -- Peter Molyneux did a "what went wrong with Fable" talk at GDC. I want Will to do a similar presentation at GDC. It would only show he's smart enough to realize just because a game sells 2 million that the customers aren't happy with it, and he recognizes that, and he is looking into what didn't work so it can be fixed in future games. He did that when he acknowledged the problems with Sims Online, same needs to be done with Spore.

Jaleho wrote:I want Will to do a similar presentation at GDC. It would only show he's smart enough to realize just because a game sells 2 million that the customers aren't happy with it, and he recognizes that, and he is looking into what didn't work so it can be fixed in future games. He did that when he acknowledged the problems with Sims Online, same needs to be done with Spore.

I hope the people that have no real vision doesn't get in the way, and let him do that as well.
I hate those persons that think to admit to be wrong is a sign of weakness, and should be avoided if you want to look strong to be followed.
Come on, no one is looking for be a follower of a might leader.
And most of us thing the strength is not on to look flawless, but is in to have courage to admit your mistakes, and to show the stamina to work it out.

Woah, this thread STILL isn't dead?

That's actually pretty darn creepy.

hhhmmmm

i cant say much to this. I didnt like the earlier prototypes.

MaxisWill wrote:I’ve just recently tuned into this thread on the forums. I usually try to keep more up to date but I’ve been traveling way too much lately. Wow, there’s some rather intense discussion here I see about the design decisions we made in Spore. I think it’s really important for me to jump in and clarify a few things from my point of view.

First let me say a few things about the “Cute” vs. “Science” perspectives in Spore. It is true that during most of the design process we had team members on different sides of this debate. While I was officially on the science side at the same time I always saw this as a crucial tension that I wanted to foster, in other words I didn’t want the science side to win, I wanted to make sure both sides were represented in the game to some degree.

*snap*

A genre-spanning game like Spore is almost by its very nature experimental. Not only do we not have an existing game to learn design lessons from, we also don’t initially know what the demographic of our players will be (and hence their expectations for complexity and depth). As we move forward with the franchise we plan to listen closely and learn. Our plans for the first Spore expansions are already revolving heavily around what we’re hearing from our players so far.

I want to personally thank everyone who’s playing Spore, especially for the countless, wonderful creations that have been posted to Sporepedia. And I also want to give thanks and encouragement for the discussions here on our forum that will help us make Spore a cooler experience for everyone.

-Will Wright

my very first post on the forums, and i just quoted the parts i want to write something about.
first of all, i dont know anything about the flaming going on here on the forums regarding mr.hecker, but i do know that a lot of the players/customers give the game a bad rep. because of its, so called, "cuteness".
and i got to say, i share their opinion to a certain degree.
i mean, you are a genius to come up with an idea like this, that people are able to play through an entire evolution. now comes the "but". but while playing this title, it feels so simple like walking through a toys'r'us - a furry thing here, some cute sticker there, and a bubblegum on top - e voila.
i know that this game wasnt for the "hardcorers of the gaming-scene" and focused on casuals, but i think it failed at that point completly. so, now, it tries to be "best of both worlds", but appeals only to some fans. while the majority of the gamers is not really interested even after all the commercials over here and instead flaming EA for their securom decision (by the way, it does not stop the piracy, but thats another story).

my concern about all this is, that this franchise could turn out to be an epic fail, cause of missing depth and complexity overall. which is my next point.
the goals of the stages are pretty simple. well, theres some balancing issues here n there, but thats "just cosmetical". its just the fact that the decisions ingame doesnt affect the rest of the game enough (or better, at all), and after you played around a bit, you have seen everything and are left with a ton of (good and simple) editors. i know this is a sandbox game, but the "gaming-part" is way to short in the overall design and repetitive as hell. i laughed much while the first playthrough, but i didnt even made it to the center of the galaxy cause of all the little fightings and these so called "quests", so it didnt even feel like a "sandbox". and from my point of view, its the same problem like cute vs creepy thing mentioned above - tried to mix both and failed.

i'm really sorry to say all this, cause i love your what you did in the past with simcity and the sims and all that. i played them all and i loved them, so it hurts even more to write such critics about this title.
but i felt like i had to add this to the conversation.

best wishes.

PS: sorry for the bad grammar, its not my native language.

If EA and Maxis are truley listen to us, and would like to "evolve" this game into the deep exiting game that they promised us that it would be, then you can help save spore by going to the forum link on my signature below. And EA and Maxis, a special note for you, read the forum as well, and give us the game that we crave!!!!!!!!!!

i did make it to the center of the galaxy, but only after i was so bored with the space phase part of the game that i found the shortest route there and shot through as fast as i could

WARNING MINOR SPOILER ALERT:

after i got there, i thought the new tool you get was pretty cool, but after using it twice, i was bored again, with nothing else to shoot for. Thats our hope for spore, a time waster basically, it desperately needs the depth that we ask for in my signature below, join the forum, and give all your great ideas to EA and Maxis.

Hey, I'm thirteen years old and I have been a Maxis fan since I first discovered who was making the games I loved so.

When I was 4, I first started using the computer and my father introduced me to SimCity 3000. I began playing it and I enjoyed it very much. At my age I was only just begin to develop a better understanding of how things work and playing with SimCity helped me with that. I can't remember much clearly but what I do know is that I had a lot of fun making my own cities and trying to figure out how I could make it work, tinkering around with many things.

Later on, when I was much older, about 6 or 7, my father bought me The Sims. Again, after I played the game, it captured my interest. The things I could do! I enjoyed building houses for my Sims almost as much as I enjoyed playing with them. It was, to me, like a big storybook. I got every expansion pack that came out (except Makin' Magic).

Only two years ago I bought The Sims 2 out of faith in it's quality from the first game. It was exactly as before and I loved the game. Almost right after getting the game, I gained access to the internet, this was a big thing for me. Unfortunately, due to my faith in Maxis, when I heard about Spore on the internet I immediately said "I want this game". I didn't read much into the game but I knew enough to tell the game was going to be the best thing I'd ever played.

After 2 years of waiting, I finally heard of the release of Spore. I was so excited about the features I'd heard about I even told my teacher about how the game could possibly give a view on how ecosystems work. My father was also convinced that the game would be great by what I told him, so he bought the game for me.

When I got to play it I was trying to keep optimistic but Spore just kept proving itself dull. Now I'm too afraid to even tell my friends and family about how disappointing Spore was for me. My best friend was so persuaded by my hyping up of things that it's hard for me to direct him to another game when he comes over.

Not only did I get tricked, I tricked everyone else around me. Now I'm not saying Spore is particularly a bad game, but it just didn't reach the high expectations I and everyone else set for it.

Nevertheless, I remain faithful, though I see no point in actually posting this. But I will...

Evolution212 wrote:
Nevertheless, I remain faithful, though I see no point in actually posting this. But I will...

There are many more of you out there, thank you for sharing. Take note Maxis.... this is the disappointment we are all talking about.

Join the save spore thingy! click the link under my sig and read the forum! all the way down in the first post it says how to get the signature so more people can join!

MaxisWill wrote:First let me say a few things about the “Cute” vs. “Science” perspectives in Spore. It is true that during most of the design process we had team members on different sides of this debate. While I was officially on the science side at the same time I always saw this as a crucial tension that I wanted to foster, in other words I didn’t want the science side to win, I wanted to make sure both sides were represented in the game to some degree.

Well, you succeeded in one sense as the science side certainly did not win. On the other hand you failed if the intention was to represent both sides of the debate, as there is now ZERO science in Spore

MaxisWill wrote:... And their agenda in our design process was most certainly not to dumb-down the gameplay but rather to foster emotional engagement with the players in the game experience. An early example of this was the decision to add eyes to the cell game which in no way changed the gameplay, but we found for certain players made the cell experience more humorous and personal.

When I removed the eyes from a cell in my version of Spore, vision was restricted. 'Going cute' was the wrong strategy if you sought emotional engagement from players. The best way to consolidate such engagement is to INVOLVE the player in meaningful development of their creature, rather than make all creatures 'mechanically' identical and merely allow the player to 'draw the picture'. In this particular instance, the creature should (obviously) be unable to see, but this provides fascinating opportunities. For example, a creature with no eyes may start to develop sonar to navigate and find food. It would not see (visually), but would still have information about the topology of the environment, and information about near-side surfaces (easy to implement graphically).

MaxisWill wrote:I see that many of the criticisms about the depth of play in Spore seem to be personally directed to Chris Hecker in particular. This is both ironic and incorrect. Chris was the leading talent behind the voodoo math of the procedural animation system in Spore, the system that brings the creatures you design to life. As the author of this system Chris was quite aware of how flexible and also how unpredictable it could be. I had many discussions with him in particular about how much of the players design decisions would affect the actual performance of your creature in the game world.

What is ironic is the term Voodoo Mathematics when applied to said procedural animation, as (like voodoo) the procedural animation has NO BEARING on what is actually happening. "Unpredictable" is hardly a description I would use. I prefer "Tediously predictable". In this context mathematics has to be applied (i.e. have in-game meaning) to be impressive.

MaxisWill wrote:To take a quick tangent let me use the creature design vs. performance as an example. We had competing issues to face. First, we wanted the creature’s design to impact its in-game performance. Second, we wanted the economics of the editor to be simple and understandable and connected to performance. Third, we wanted a high amount of aesthetic diversity. We didn’t want there to be one ultimate design direction that the simulator was forcing all the creatures into. In other words if to be fast you had to have long legs that would have met the first goal, conflicted with the third goal and made the second much more complex.

1) If the intention was for a creature's design (should have been evolution, sigh) to impact its performance, then Spore is a spectacular failure. I really cannot see how the design of a creature affects its performance in any but the most juvenile way, and this is my main criticism regarding Spore.

2) The economics of the editor is indeed simple. Too simple. I think you might be amazed by the number of players out there with an IQ greater than 3. Never assume players are stupid. Instead just give them the option to simplify things if they so desire.

3) I agree there is a large amount of (visual) aesthetic diversity, although regarding the "ultimate design direction", again a spectacular failure. All my creatures ended up the same through necessity (big mouth, big claws, best wings for flying, and best feet for jumping). No exceptions.

Observation: A fundamental error was made in allowing the player to design and modify their creature through the game. Why even have a creature editor? A creature ought to be the product of its environment and the actions the player causes that creature to make. [In Black & White the avatar's appearance slowly reflected what the player did, and this behaviour (and more) is what I was expecting from Spore]. It would force the player to think very carefully about what they do with their creature, as their creature might change for the worse, or even lead to an evolutionary dead end (i.e., extinction). This is the key to unpredictability. Using an editor in this way serves only to make things predictable.

However, there is scope for a meaningful creature editor (whereby a player could design a creature). Say for example to determine whether or not a given design could survive in a particular environment. Except if the player spends a wad of points maxing an uber-creature then obviously environmental hostility should be radically increased. Once a creature is 'released' into an environment then further design ought to be impossible, and thereafter the creature should EVOLVE.

MaxisWill wrote:As the lead designer my goal through most of the project was to make sure the gameplay didn’t end up too complex, which resulted in simplifying many of the level dynamics and editor consequences. I felt like we were already asking quite a bit from the players as we took them through the various level genres. This was totally my judgment call and not even part of the agenda of the “cute” team, and certainly not the fault of Chris Hecker. So to make a long story short I’m the one to be blamed for any faults in the gameplay, that’s my job on the team.

What? Are you suggesting that Spore was originally more sophisticated, and there were consequences for decisions made in the editor (rather than the editor merely being a paint-shop)? If so, and the game was simplified (read dumbed-down), then WHY BOTHER TO MAKE IT SOPHISTICATED IN THE FIRST PLACE? Also, WHY ADVERTISE THE PREVIOUS PRODUCT TO PLAYERS RATHER THAN THE CURRENT PRODUCT? The first point is a matter of competence, but the second point really does stray perilously close to the edge of what I consider decent behaviour. A company should always be honest with customers. Believe me, EA/Maxis really do not need a reputation such as that associated with the likes of Gameforge (or similar).

MaxisWill wrote:Chris is one of the most talented people I’ve ever had the pleasure to work with in the game industry and he takes his craft quite seriously. So it’s been very disturbing for me to read how he has been unfairly vilified for what were in fact entirely my design decisions.

Agreed. I cannot testify to any talent Chris may or may not have (as I have seen no evidence whatsoever), but it is entirely pointless to blame an individual for presumably doing his best. Constructive criticism might help to solve the problem, whereas vilifying someone on the forums is hardly going to get the result the more sophisticated players are after.

MaxisWill wrote:A genre-spanning game like Spore is almost by its very nature experimental. Not only do we not have an existing game to learn design lessons from, we also don’t initially know what the demographic of our players will be (and hence their expectations for complexity and depth). As we move forward with the franchise we plan to listen closely and learn. Our plans for the first Spore expansions are already revolving heavily around what we’re hearing from our players so far.

Hm, I am afraid I will need to see this before I believe it. Ideally you would revert to the previous version of Spore and start building on that (but in the opposite direction), although I suspect this might now be impossible. Otherwise try to push it toward an unpredictable evolution-based mechanic rather than anything based on design. If you absolutely insist on (intelligent?) design over evolution, than at least balance the game properly. Examples;

1) If a creature is designed with longer legs then it might be able to move faster (depending on where joints are, angles of limb parts, etc). Ideally body shape would determine gait, although this kind of mechanism can get incredibly complex (which is I suspect, the real reason it was not implemented). The downside is that those long legs should snap easily

2) The bigger and more active a creature is, the more food it needs to eat. So you might find a lethal predator needs to sleep 90% of the time to conserve its energy, or start losing body mass. Alternatively, you might find a large herbivore is forced to stay awake all day in order to eat constantly, etc.

3) There ought to be a HARDCORE MODE where the player does not have access to cell/creature editors. Personally I design my creatures entirely for specific Space Stage bonuses, which is another reason they all end up the same. In Hardcore Mode the changes to a creature should be based on environment and behaviour alone. And it should be entirely possible for a creature to become extinct.

4) Space Stage is currently useless (although nowhere near as useless as Civ Stage). I can only describe the simplicity of the economy as VERY DISTURBING INDEED. The Grox were so annoying I had no choice but to ally with them to keep them off my back. Of the 70 or 80 remaining civilizations I encountered so far, I am afraid I had to eradicate every last one of them, primarily (but not always) for hassling me constantly. Easier to kill them all than suffer their constant purile radio messages. The Space Stage urgently requires variety and depth. What really bugs me about the Space Stage is when you have seen one planet, you have seen them all...worlds need to be fundamentally different (mechanically) to give the player reasons to explore and visit them.

MaxisWill wrote:I want to personally thank everyone who’s playing Spore, especially for the countless, wonderful creations that have been posted to Sporepedia. And I also want to give thanks and encouragement for the discussions here on our forum that will help us make Spore a cooler experience for everyone.

-Will Wright

Please do not thank me, as I had to stop playing Spore. The main reason was disappointment. To be fair, when I first reached Space Stage and realized the galaxy was not some aesthetic overlay, and that numerous stars all existed and could be travelled to, I had the biggest rush (regarding PC games) in as long as I can remember. All previous flaws I experienced were immediately forgiven. I was having severe problems getting my head around the scope and potential, and suffice to say seriously considered cancelling my appointments indefinitely. I was about as excited as I have ever been about any game (bar Defender, 1981 coin-op).

Then, when I realized the galaxy WAS essentially 100% cosmetic, I experienced something akin to the inverse of that rush; A profound disappointment I want to forget as fast as possible. Playing Spore now just reminds me of what the game could have been. So much potential squandered, and for what?

If I were Maxis controller I would wind down Spore now, and perhaps even junk development entirely. I reckon you are flogging a dead horse. By all means clean it up, but I advise wasting as little time on it now as possible. Get busy on Spore 2, and this time do the job properly.

Otherwise I guarantee you in several years time there will be a "Spore 2", and it will be everything Spore ought to have been, except the EA/Maxis logos will not be on the box...it will be some other well-financed games company that seize the opportunity you hereby present to them on silver platter. You have opened the door to this genre, but unfortunately failed to capitalize on it (at least in game terms). Now you have a limited time in order to get it together before the vultures start circling, and ultimately take full advantage.

Curiously, I found that over the last thirty years the big-budget companies produce games that are becoming progressively more banal. There are exceptions, but generally this is the case. I suspect commercial factors are to blame (i.e., appealing to the mass audience for financial gain, in a similar manner to the film and music industries). Where big business is concerned, it seems pap rules.

Two of the most fascinating and inventive games I have played in the last five years have actually been free, lol. I imagine the lack of a budget forces designers and programmers to use their intellect and get creative if they want to survive these days. Both games are browser-based. One shall remain nameless as it is rather complex and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. The other, Fantastic Contraption, you should take a look at. It is a fine example of how simple components and mechanisms CAN produce outrageously unpredictable results, which are often very amusing to watch (for all the wrong reasons). If you investigate this further you will learn much about game design, especially with regard to depth, and quality. It proves you do not need flashy graphics or complexity to hook players.

The key to any and all successful games is PLAYABILITY. After all, it is a game, and it exists to be played (not merely sold). If a game is unplayable and/or uninteresting, then the developers essentially fail in their task (assuming the objective is to make a decent game, and not just a whole stack of cash).

Finally, do not take the criticism of Spore out of context. So you made a mistake, it can happen to anyone. This is a good opportunity to go back and redesign things for Spore 2. Except this time if anyone infected with Cutesie Fluffy-Bunny Syndrome approaches you, just defenestrate them. It is more than they deserve. Hire a few scientists. Focus on playability above all else. If a single member of your team cannot give a sufficient definition of 'playability' then dispose of them too. What would impress me (and many others) is getting it right with Spore 2. People say you are one of the best game developers...so show us what you can do when faced with a tricky problem

Mowglia

Spore 2? LOL I will buy spore 2 when they refund my money for spore 1.

very very very interesting

nevermind