Thank you mflux.

mflux wrote:I have misgivings about jumping this discussion, since the post I made caused quite a bit of misunderstanding, mis-quoting, and general confusion. Not even sure why I was quoted here... using me to prove some point!

I know the OP was not made here on Sporum, but rather on XSpore. However this general bashing of Chris has to stop. Despite the post being thoughtfully written, it mainly quotes the Seed article and that's really the only instance of Chris stating his opinion, which may or may not have changed over the intervening years. Also, whether or not he liked the Wii is completely irrelevant.

Chris himself doesn't need any defending, but since he has no voice here (Maxis or EA will not allow any of their employees to post in most general cases) you are not inciting a dialogue, but simply causing a riot. And since he's not here to defend himself, I feel free to state that Chris I've met is very professional, obsessed about video games (and as much of a Spore "fan" as you or I), a brilliant programmer, and much a harder working than you or I.

In fact, the first time I googled for "rigid body dynamics" to learn about physics in game programming, his name came up number one on the list. That's how big of an influence he has.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=91a&q=rigid+body+dynamics&btnG=Search


My point is, you simply cannot come to any sort of conclusion based on some measly snippets and quotes. Your perspective of the situation completely changes once you take into account the fact that the design team is a highly complex entity, and not one person could have force the game along a particular path. Throwing blame down on one person is entirely unfair.

Sporum, I think you're better than this. This community should be better than a lynch mob. I think the Spore community should support constructive criticism, not be assigning blame, and least of all, to single Maxis employees. It's ugly, and it shows no restraint. It's much better to allow the developers be on your side, rather than against you.



I'll simply leave this post with this XKCD strip that sums up TLDR


"It's easier to be an a**hole to words than it is to people."

OK

Now where is my game?

People are angry, they feel maligned, abused as consumers, and they're fed up. The reason Chris is taking all of the heat is because of how public he was about his opinions. Of course they will latch on to him as a scapegoat.

I pointed out that it was more than one person - but his name is out there now, and because of it he will take the heat. There is no stopping the monster of mobthink unless they start taking actions like bannings, lockings, and closing the forum.

We're dealing with a herd, and sure I have taken shots at Chris, but that's because he's got his name out there being quoted about what he accomplished as far as cute goes - and until he makes any kind of defense of himself, if EA ever allows it, that is going to be a constant.

If EA wanted to really let things go, they would un-restrict all the people who worked on the game from giving their opinions and applying freely to our mass anger, prejudices, and overall foaming at the mouths.

You can only starve and abuse an animal so long before it starts to get angry. Consider the starvation here as the information and ability to have any kind of meaningful discussion with the team that built spore. Until that is allowed, these attacks are likely to never go away.

SPORE him..

mflux wrote:I have misgivings about jumping this discussion, since the post I made caused quite a bit of misunderstanding, mis-quoting, and general confusion. Not even sure why I was quoted here... using me to prove some point!

I know the OP was not made here on Sporum, but rather on XSpore. However this general bashing of Chris has to stop. Despite the post being thoughtfully written, it mainly quotes the Seed article and that's really the only instance of Chris stating his opinion, which may or may not have changed over the intervening years. Also, whether or not he liked the Wii is completely irrelevant.

Chris himself doesn't need any defending, but since he has no voice here (Maxis or EA will not allow any of their employees to post in most general cases) you are not inciting a dialogue, but simply causing a riot. And since he's not here to defend himself, I feel free to state that Chris I've met is very professional, obsessed about video games (and as much of a Spore "fan" as you or I), a brilliant programmer, and much a harder working than you or I.

In fact, the first time I googled for "rigid body dynamics" to learn about physics in game programming, his name came up number one on the list. That's how big of an influence he has.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=91a&q=rigid+body+dynamics&btnG=Search


My point is, you simply cannot come to any sort of conclusion based on some measly snippets and quotes. Your perspective of the situation completely changes once you take into account the fact that the design team is a highly complex entity, and not one person could have force the game along a particular path. Throwing blame down on one person is entirely unfair.

Sporum, I think you're better than this. This community should be better than a lynch mob. I think the Spore community should support constructive criticism, not be assigning blame, and least of all, to single Maxis employees. It's ugly, and it shows no restraint. It's much better to allow the developers be on your side, rather than against you.

Well said. I apologize for quoting you somewhat out of context, but your comments prove my point... to a degree. If you look at my comments throughout the thread, I'm not particularly anti-Hecker. I think he may have put himself in the limelight by careless accident, but I still think his cutesy approach may have been notable bad judgment. As I said slightly higher up, I don't question his motivation, or his personality, I question his judgment.

I don't want to see blood, I want to see the game that was advertised. The anger of the community is transitory, it's an expression of extreme disappointment. Whether Hecker is at fault or not, the point is that something went wrong, and has damaged Will's creation. The community wants to see acknowledgment, and a shifting of gears. The uproar is to remind EA and Maxis of that.

His comment on the Wii is an example of slipping judgment. He admits it himself. I'd like him to admit the same for his cute approach to Spore. In all honesty though, I'm disappointed at all the Maxis employees who sided with him far more than him. This should not be a problem. You should trust your head designer, that's what he's there for. Perhaps Will should have pushed his side a bit harder. For a moment he forget he's not just trying to sell something, he's trying to make something.

Bottom line, they have not done as they said they would. The community is annoyed. Since I have faith in them, I expect they will fix it. But they need to shift gears and say so. As Jackuul said, you can only starve and abuse an animal so long before it starts to get angry. If Maxis says they feel Spore is currently lackluster and plan to change that, the animal will settle down. Until then, it'll keep rolling.

Jackuul wrote:People are angry, they feel maligned, abused as consumers, and they're fed up. The reason Chris is taking all of the heat is because of how public he was about his opinions. Of course they will latch on to him as a scapegoat.

He is not really a scapegoat though. He is a big reason why Spore is the way it is today.

Jackuul wrote:

midian1369 wrote:Forget tar and feather.....drop him into a swimming pool filled with rubbing alcohol and double edged razor blades.

+100 to whomever identifies the origin of this saying.

The likelihood of that causing pain is about equal or less than tarring and feathering, because with the impact into the razors nerves would likely be cut, and it could be a fatal thing to do, as exsanguination is likely within the first ten to twenty minutes.

er...no....it's from a weird Al yankovic song.....you do have a point though

Who ever 1-starred me is a child.. I said d-a-m-n him.. I do not profane.

Visko wrote:Chris Hecker's statement regarding the Wii is horribly innacurate. 2 Gamecube's duct-taped together is WAY better than a Wii.

HAHAHAHA that was funny. I happened to agree with that part of his bio!

Who ever you are... please find every single one of my posts and one star them if it makes you feel better. because the concept of Karma is far and above your understanding of the concept.

ZeekSlider wrote:...
With Spore, based on the "hard science version" aesthetic, I would have been made nausious. I have the GE version of the game; I've seen the art book. I know where they have come from and where they are now. (And that spider monster at the beginning part of the Creature phase chapter is so awesome!!) But that wouldn't have won me over asethetically if I knew nothing about the gameplay.

In the end, it was the gameplay that won me over, and from my seat, it just sounds like a lot of people are complaining about how it looks or the fact that a stage was cut out. The core foundation of the game is still there and still in tact. Some people just can't see it behind all the fluff and fuzzy-wuzzies that it became in order to sell it to a group of consumers that like to buy cute things. And I don't mean kids.

It doesn't matter. You didn't have to be a civil engineer to eventually "get" SimCity or experiment with it or blow up your cities. Nobody picking up the Sims is a social scientist in real life - at least, definitely not a majority, unless there are 100 million social scientists out there I haven't heard of.

You don't have to be a biologist to get a science-y spore. Long legs means faster, that's easy to get. Long limbs means reach. You don't have to know behavioral ecology to know why making a short animal makes it stealthier in order to make a short animal. Would it really have clobbered your gameplay if most of the stealthy things crouched furtively in addition to mostly being ambush predators or skulking prey animals? Instead, everything has the "Predator" shimmering outline.

Instead of looking out for and avoiding ambush sites (like low vegetation near an open area) you have to constantly look out for that "stealthing" Epic that has its two-story bulk shimmer into place directly overtop of you. How would the former have made life more unbearable? How would it have horribly ruined gameplay? Does it ruin gameplay that you have to have wings to fly? Based on the logic presented up until now, I'd have to say it would.

Without any meaning to the shape of these creatures, they are doodles. Their shape has no reflection of what they can do. They are husks for a collection of sets of four numbers, which only come with the "uber" parts.

If that is gameplay that you prefer, I would suggest a plethora of RPGs, except they are more complex. They have more than four "levels," and a lot more "parts." But they are basically similar point-and-click adventures.

Gritmonger wrote:Without any meaning to the shape of these creatures, they are doodles. Their shape has no reflection of what they can do. They are husks for a collection of sets of four numbers, which only come with the "uber" parts.

Only a sliver of a well said post. The glory of Spore... or what it would have been, was that it was hard science, but the game did the science part for you. You just experimented. That's a sandbox. The hard science that is missing isn't biology questions every time you go into the editor, it's things you wouldn't see directly. Realistic behavior in animals, for one. The ability of the game to surprise you.

(Also, that is one sweet looking mollusk you've got in your signature. A fellow mollusk-lover?)

Here's how I look at the victory of the Cute Team. They're decision made the game simple, cute, and easy to play for anyone. Even toddlers. However, this victory left the fans who followed the game's development from its beginnings sorely disappointed. I love science, and I was hoping for a game that at least incorporated a bit more complexity and added some relevance to the structure of the creatures. I find that the game is decent, but without any of the potential it showed early on.

Finnical wrote:

mflux wrote:In the extremely early versions that I toyed around with, I was able to make creatures that shifted under their own weight. Creatures that exploited the length of their arms or legs for greater reach. Creatures that behave and move true to how they were built. A short bunny-creature would definitely be out-run by the long-legged dragon-giraffe. That was very neat, and it implied several exciting possibilities in gameplay.

For instance, creature morphology actually mattered. This implied deeper strategy to creature creation. You have a small inkling of this in the Cell stage where placement of parts somewhat mattered. For example, spikes placed behind your creature saved you from being bitten when chased. But, the strategy that earlier prototypes implied went beyond placement of parts. The length of limbs or spine felt like it mattered. If you had a forward-heavy animal with legs placed in the back, it would run poorly as it tries (and fails) to counteract its own weight.

Want.

My interest was seriously peaked when I read this. It sounds awesome, more realistic, and puts more emphasis on the importance of how creatures are built! I'd take some realism and science over cutesy cartoonism in Spore any day.

mflux wrote:My point is, you simply cannot come to any sort of conclusion based on some measly snippets and quotes. Your perspective of the situation completely changes once you take into account the fact that the design team is a highly complex entity, and not one person could have force the game along a particular path. Throwing blame down on one person is entirely unfair.

Sporum, I think you're better than this. This community should be better than a lynch mob. I think the Spore community should support constructive criticism, not be assigning blame, and least of all, to single Maxis employees. It's ugly, and it shows no restraint. It's much better to allow the developers be on your side, rather than against you.

Indeed, but what you have here is a bunch of irate customers who feel like they got ripped off, and are likely to get more of the same soon, lol. They are always going to look for somewhere to vent and someone to blame. Although as you said, assigning blame solves nothing, and better to address the issue - is Spore fixable?

Someone suggested EA/Maxis might update Spore into what it ought to have been via expansion packs. I am skeptical. Even assuming they could wave a magic wand and fix the creature section (to apply the physical properties of a creature to its performance and success in the environment), I do not see how it could be implemented. How could a properly expanded version of the game possibly be compatible with the current "dumbed down" version? I think at best we will have to wait until Spore 2.

To me it seems Maxis misunderstood the fundamental concept. They got it the wrong way around. I have to assume the game was about evolution, but there is no "intelligent design" in evolution. If my creature spends time hiding from predators in green vegetation, then its hide is likely to start turning green. Similarly, if survival depends on evading a fast predator then running speed may increase (presumably at the expense of other things, like upper-body muscle-mass). Ideally the player should have NO input over the evolutionary process other than simply to control the actions of their creature. The evolutionary changes in the creatures ought to be the result of the environment, creature behaviour, interactions with other creatures, and the sequence of events over time (i.e., chance).

In other words, the form of your creature should represent the many triumphs and disasters the generations have experienced along the way. The fascination lies in not knowing how things will turn out. There ought to be a hardcore mode where it is possible a creature will not survive for a vast array of reasons, ranging from predators, food shortage, drought, to unsuccessful creature behaviour, and even just plain bad luck (local supernova evaporates planet). I reckon players would identify with their creatures most strongly if their very form was a physical record and testimony to their struggle for survival. As ours is.

Unfortunately I cannot reconcile my expectations of such a game with this designer pink-fluffy-bunny thing Maxis have got going. These perversions obviously would not last 10 seconds outside a toy shop, and this is not what I had in mind at all. Who in their right mind would allow the creation of such things? Oh, the humanity!

Now to be fair, obviously a realistic model of evolution has to be massively simplified, and I am not saying doing it is going to be easy. It is probably the most sophisticated thing computer-game engineers have ever attempted. However, you might be surprised at what can be achieved by simple systems. There is no need to go crazy or get too ambitious to obtain an outstanding result.

I came across a good example of this the other day in a freebie called Fantastic Contraption. The idea is you have access to some bits and pieces, and you have to build a machine to do a simple job (typically move a blob to a specific location). So you build your machine, and test it to see if it works, and then if necessary modify and test again over cycles to get it working. Some of the results are spectacular failures, some ingenious successes, some downright pathetic, some hilariously optimistic, some horribly unpredictable, and many rather amusing. I was staggered by what other people had done for more reasons than I care to explain here. And amazed by how such an apparently simple mechanism with such simple components could yield such a playable, addictive, and sophisticated result.

Granted it is not everyone's cup of tea, but it proves that simple systems do not have to be cute or non-scientific to be radical fun, yet also model reality in a fascinating albeit simplified way. Maxis/EA ought to take a long hard look at this freebie. It is very simple, very clever, very playable, and precisely captures the spirit of what Spore should have been about - the uncertainty involved in the nature of evolution, and the fun that can be had with failure as well as success.

Someone will make a "Fantastic Contraption" Spore one day, and it will spark a gaming revolution. But I doubt it will be EA/Maxis. I think it will take programmers and designers with a genuine interest in both science and games to do this, whereas EA seem to be more commercially oriented