Messages posted by: RocketGirl

Luminar wrote:400 is 77% of what? Forum posters? All spore buyers?

You know, the poll is right. there. You should be able to figure out these answers for yourself; stop wasting everybody's time.

Luminar wrote:Would you care to explain this assertion? You yourself said 400. If I am wrong on that, so are you.

The point isn't the 400, the point is that 400 is 77 percent. Surveys are not meant to be a flat count; they're meant to be data which can be extrapolated to the population at large.

Even with an extremely generous margin of error, we're still looking at well over 50% of people who want Science Spore.

Luminar wrote:400 vs several million is a clear mismatch. You are protesting in hopes of an utter non-possibility.

Your knowledge of statistics and the methodology of surveying is...appalling.

Rathalosfire wrote:I don't want to play any games. I want an answer. nothing more, nothing less. Me being emotional unstable does not make sense to me. Elaborate if you will. Or should I say, If you can.

I would...if I thought there was a chance that you were reasonable or rational enough to understand what wa being said. So far...you've managed to demonstrate the exact opposite, even if all I had to go on was this last post;p the others you've excreted onto this board are just gravy.

Rathalosfire wrote:

Luminar wrote:I WANT world peace, but it's not gonna happen no matter how much I scream at people.

NIIIIICE ! @rocket- how am I emotionally unstable

How am I "beyond anger"?

Like I said, do you really want to play that game?

Luminar wrote:I WANT world peace, but it's not gonna happen no matter how much I scream at people.

Won't happen if you stay quiet and do nothing, either.

Rathalosfire wrote:If ya don't play spore, won't be nice, Then just SPORE off so we can enjoy our game without jerks like you.

No.

I WANT to play Spore, I just want to play the Spore that Will Wright described back in 2005, the one that required intelligence and thought to play, and which adapted to each user's play-style, instead of this dumbed down, cutesy dress-up game we've got now.

Your past post indicate you are way past anger.

I'll decide that, thanks.

Your posts aren't sounding exactly emotionally stable; do you really want to play that game?

Rathalosfire wrote:Rocketgirl, you are being a jerk.

No, I'm angry; there's a difference.

You don't even play spore do you.

Not anymore, and I wish I hadn't EVER. Frankly, I wish I'd never heard of it at this point. I wish Spore had never existed.

...maybe then we'd have a chance to get Will Wright to get it done properly.

also, misleading or falsification of information is not always lying, in the video game biz it called hyping. and the truth is Hype is always wrong.

A turd by any other name...

Sorry 'bout calling you a troll, rocket, but your making me mad by bashing spore with paper thin reasoning

I'm not bashing Spore, I'm bashing WHAT WAS DONE TO Spore. Again, there's a difference.

Luminar wrote:Cute and Science needn't even be opposed, now that I think about it. Since Spore puts the onus on the user to create the content, it is entirely feasible to create a "science series" with scientific themed creatures with facts and trivia.

What's missing is scientific GAMEPLAY, not creatures.

darwinjr wrote:It seems to me some poor guy's innocent question...

It wasn't an innocent question. I've never seen Eek do anything without an ulterior motive.

Eekwotsthat wrote:Or simply everyone has their own ideas about what science spore is..

And yet, nearly 400 people want it, regardless. This ought to tell Maxis that maybe, just maybe, they got it wrong. And that people are unsatisfied with what they were sold.

junipe wrote:oh my god there's already almost 400 votes saying to make it if they would make at least 20,000 dollars. and not to mention the fact that there are also about 50 times more people who want it and just haven't voted.

You'd think this would make a difference to SOMEone.

But of course, there's all those naysayers who think that A) only those who want it have voted and B) the samepl here is too small and the public at large doesn't want it but aren't here to vote.

ericDartist wrote:I'm surprised people are still bashing it 2 whole months after it came out. Who bashes a two-month old game, when a number of other good games came out for you to play?

People who were told they'd be getting a certain kind of game that nobody else is making, and then who didn't get it in the end.

ericDartist wrote:
So, um, you want to spend millions of years to give your creature a small adaptation?

That's not even remotely what I said. I said that to be realistic, Spore would have to put limits on how much a creature can change from generation to generation. Obviously Spore is meant to be somewhat symbolic, rather than a direct simulation of evolution. But what they have NOW is nothing LIKE realistic.

Luminar wrote:You, by your own admission, have stated that your abrasive and demanding posts are due to the observation that twice Will Wright has had to step in to mellow out debates that were turning nasty.

No, I haven't.

I have said that this seems to be the only way to actually get direct communication from Maxis, but I never said that's where my posting style has come from.

Your logic being if you throw a big tantrum then he'll inevitably show up again. I think considering someone as being nothing more than stimulus and response is a bit rude, yes?

It's their own fault, regardless; if they'd actually step in once in a while and SAY SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE instead of being political and evasive on the rare occasions that they DO show up, they might have stemmed the tide of anger, confusion, and disappointment before it ever got started.

And yes, marketing may technically be an outside and borderline form of deciet... but it's not lying.

Of COURSE it's lying. If it's misleading or untrue, it's lying.

But go on...keep defending Maxis like a good little lapdog.