http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/2.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net

Hello Sporum and Maxis, I want to introduce myself to the community and spew my thoughts on Spore.

Since I've long since left Maxis and have pretty much kept my mouth shut before the game was released, I feel safer now to talk about the game without risking any sort of NDA breach. If someone at EA is really uncomfortable about this, I won't be upset if this is C/D'd and I'll shut up

[b]Pre-development[/b]
I worked on Spore for four months in summer 2004 as an intern and worked on several prototypes and concept art during the prototyping part of development. My work included the creature part selector (which surprisingly turned out exactly the way it was prototyped, though I'm sure it went through numerous revisions later on), built early prototypes of creature and building parts (with draggable widgets for re-shaping your parts or blocks), and spent countless hours messing with an early version of the creature.

First I'd like to dispel the rumor that the 2005 demos were "rendered" or "heavily scripted". I'm not 100% certain to what extent the demos were "scripted", but at the stage of development when I was there the builds of the game already had most of the mechanics that we see today.

The creature editor that was available at the time had some of the most amazing procedural animation work I've ever seen anyone develop. Perhaps, somewhat more innovative than what we see in the game today (more on this later).


After stalking this forum for about about a week after release, and reading all the reviews and reactions, then having played the game myself for about fifty hours, here are some of my opinions.

[b]Creature creation seems over-simplified[/b]
This was a big deal for me. 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.

I can see the [i]reason[/i] why Maxis shifted the design from a "morphology matters" philosophy to a "every design works". Somewhere along the line, someone must have decided that it wasn't good to build creatures that could fail. This emphasizes (hopefully) people to experiment with different looking creatures, rather than focus only on creatures that perform well (or perform at all).

The problem with this is that within "friendly" game design, all creatures became a bland, unified "idea" of a creature. With a game being so inspired by evolutionary design, the game takes so little advantage of the exciting things that could be done with the ideas its selling. I have a strong feeling that this is the main reason why people feel the game-play to be "shallow".

Imagine for a moment that morphology does matter. Less surface area would mean less area to be bitten (or perhaps, less mass to carry around). Longer necks would mean eating better fruits found higher up on trees. Bigger and stronger arms could let you pick up and use larger and larger objects (pick up other creatures, or throw rocks and boulders). Longer legs (including legs that end up in a tentacle-like spiral fashion) would mean faster running, but legs might tangle up with each other if poorly designed. Less protrusions from the body might mean better aerodynamics, and thus more controlled flight.

This leads to a tight feed-back loop more true to "evolution", and I would think, leads to more fun gameplay. You're forced to consider whether or not you could afford that longer arm or that longer tail. You're forced to decide whether to put those spikes on the head so it hurts another creature as you're biting, versus hurting someone only from a tail-strike. Even with this setup I would imagine there's would still be a huge space for creature designs, making it a challenge to build creatures that both perform well and look awesome.

These ideas got off-loaded to the responsibility of creature parts, which IMO is sort of disappointing. By the way, none of the above ideas s impossible. It was by sheer design choice that Maxis, for whatever reason, avoided altogether.

I'll give a few theories on why the above design was avoided. Perhaps there is fear that the Sporepedia would end up full of creatures that were insanely fast, or impossible to kill (ruining other people's experiences). There might be glitches found in the skeletal system allowing some creature exploits. Perhaps there was fear that eventually some "optimal" creature design would be found, and that every creature would end up being some variation of that "perfect creature".

However, I think that's why having a user-policed system (creature scoring) is useful. Players can simply subscribe to creatures that are tastefully designed and non-exploited. In addition, this type of "morphology-based" gameplay would perhaps transfer to tribal weapons, vehicles, and spaceship (which is 0% performance-desgn association). This way the game can be as challenging as what other people make. That is a true massively-single player game.

I'm not sure what can be done at this point to even do anything about it. That vision of Spore, the one I described above, exists now in some parallel universe which we can only dream about.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48350.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48350.page GMT Some things that have been posted elsewhere, but I've also experienced.

Many of the games objectives are actually chores. This recalls some of the worst design-choices from *bad word* Sims Online. It's ironic that [b]MMO-style grinding somehow showed up in a single player game[/b]. "Your quest is to kill 5 creatures over that hill right there." This doesn't seem to get any better in space "Your quest is to kill 5 [i]infected[/i] creatures over that hill right there."

Tribe stage and civ stage feels like it had some hope of being more than chores, but the lack of unit variety, formations (using flocking developed from creature phase would have been really beautiful), and an additional type of resource to defend makes both stages feel hollow.

This could potentially be made much more fun with patches or (with more money ) expansions.

Picking up spice and[b] defending your colony is a real chore[/b]. Defending pirate and grox attacks are like fires in Sim City. Imagine you had fires breaking out in your Sim City, but instead of the camera going directly to the disaster area and one-clicking to send a fire truck, you actually have to use drive-mode for your fire truck, manually drive it there, then spray water to put it out. Then imagine if you played Sim City like this and fires broke out every five minutes in any random city in your region, and placing fire stations don't really help; in addition the fire stations get destroyed in the process. I'm the mayor, not the fire-truck driver. Like-wise, I'm the "omnipotent", but I still have the responsibilities of a lowly ship-commander.

[b] Piloting and directing dog-fights are fun for the first few fights[/b], especially when you get better weapons and meet stronger (but no more sophisticated) enemies. After gaining such incredible ranks as "The Revered" or "The Omninpotent", these fights should only be directed to the player only if one fight requires your god-like powers (raising volcanoes, using terraforming to destroy ships, things that only I, not other ship commanders, could do).

[b]Placing colonies is surprisingly repetitive.[/b] The colony planner allows you to place buildings, but there's only a few optimal ways of placement and after you've figured that out, you have to attempt and re-produce three times for [i]every-single-planet[/i] you colonize. For those who wish to take over the galaxy, this becomes somewhat of a show-stopper.

[b]Your awesome land-air-sea military becomes drones[/b] once you take off into space. They do nothing to help defend against invaders, despite the fact that they previously helped take over an entire planet.



Finally, the game seems to impose many unreasonable limits on what players could do, despite giving us the "idea" that something may be possible. For a game so heavily influenced by science-fiction, Spore seems to not want players to actually play those out. Here are some ideas I want to throw out to Maxis. Some of the may already have been stated by other players.

[b]Fleets[/b] - Every space-opera had cool fleets of ships. Babylon 5, Star Trek, Star Wars. We have a space [b]empire[/b] after-all!

[b]Planet to Planet[/b] wars - Currently the game does not allow two types of sentient life in one Star System. Why? This seems like a really artificially imposed limit. There's no UI / gameplay reason I can possibly think of that would require this limit. Having wars fought from planet to planet (two planets home to two space-faring species) is a staple of science fiction (War of the Worlds), and it allows some early introduction of alien races, early space flight and battle (instead of inspecting some random artifact), and produces some cool dynamic.

[b]Space battles[/b] - Currently the player has no control over weapons in space, but your allied friends seem more than happy to open fire. Is Space a no-fire-zone for only your empire?

[b]Playing as creature in Tribe / Civ / Space[/b] stage - Yes, I would like to play as Alien, from the movies. For a sandbox game... we seem like we're -almost- allowed this but "not really". What's to stop the engine from having tribes when you are in the creature stage? I think hunting down more intelligent species with axes would be extremely satisfying.

[b]Star / Planet creation, Dyson Spheres[/b] - Where "Type II" civilizations harvest ALL energy from their star by building a giant sphere around it. Where I could create or destroy planets, planetoids, and asteroids at a whim. Actually directing asteroids a'la Sim City 4's meteor disaster.



That's pretty much all the main criticisms and suggestions I have with Spore. Some of you will probably say "well, if you don't like it don't play it!" Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the game. I really wish the best for it, for it to improve over the next few years and fulfill its maximum potential since it feels like so much of that "magic" has been lost.


Some last words in this extremely long post, thanks for Chaim, Brad, Lucy, Michael, Ocean, and ofcourse Will for giving me the best experience of my career Seriously guys, the people working on this game are the most talented, intelligent, and sophisticated people I have -ever- met. Congratulations on the big release, and I hope you all take a long, well-deserved vacation. And once you're back, you can take a long, fresh look at the wonderful game you've built and make it even better.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48353.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48353.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48354.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48354.page GMT
Just - wow. If he is who he says he is, then... that lends credence to every single post made about 2005, and destroys ever "pre-rendered" argument on the matter. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48361.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48361.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48369.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48369.page GMT
...]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48370.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48370.page GMT

Most relevent:

[quote]RPS: How did you decide upon the effect of customisation. As in, deciding that each part would have a specific effect rather based upon something in the design of the creature itself?

Alex Hutchinson: This was a really interesting, and ongoing debate on the team – early on there was one faction on the team that fervently believed creativity should have no impact on gameplay – that playing and creating were two totally separate activities, and that players should be able to create anything they wanted and then play any way they wanted. The second faction believed that creation and play were integral to each other, and that each editor should directly and powerfully impact each game.

There are many challenges with this – first, there’s just the basic argument that in a storytelling game like Spore (and our core aim was always to enable people to tell their own stories, not to ‘win’ per se) limiting people’s creativity is an essentially catastrophic decision and the more gameplay you bond to editors, the more you remove the player’s ability to tell their story of a mushroom headed toilet bowl who terrorized the earth, or the evil looking fang toothed monster who struggled to befriend the universe. If this was based purely on physical parts, both those stories are impossible, or at least terribly hard to communicate to players.

Also there’s a challenge with granularity - we originally had a formula for speed which was basically a curve that said that getting more legs made you faster until you had more than four legs, after which is it made you slower, but never made you as slow as someone with one leg, all of which was modified by the level and type of feet that you had and the mass of the entire creature. What we found however was that even people who thought they wanted that sort of calculation both didn’t understand it and didn’t like it when they were actually playing - the problem switched to ‘my guy looks like he should run real fast but he doesn’t, why?’ and we’d say, well, you put five legs on him and that bulbous tail is actually really heavy, and people were both disappointed by the result and didn’t understand it and they thought their creativity had been crushed.

Also, we originally had very fine grained stats for Creature Phase, down to a few decimal points, but we kept hitting issues where people would be .1% faster than their prey or .1% slower than their predators, so the interaction of chasing your lunch would eventually resolve but someone would be chasing the other creature across the planet for hours which obviously isn’t very interesting or fun. It all comes down to what intellectually sounds brilliant but is practically painful.

We also had stats that I really liked such as ‘cuteness’ which looked at size and type of eyes, overall size and proportion of hands and feet etc but to be honest when you’re making a casual game, it gets complicated super fast and as much as I am a hardcore gamer and would love to have semi-inscrutable stats smothering the game it just doesn’t appeal to that many people and I really like making games that actual human beings can play and enjoy.

[u]In the end we decided to cross streams basically, and begin with games that had a direct relationship between the act of creation and the in-game results, but end with games that allowed people to make whatever the wanted and then play separately. This also matched the aim of making the games themselves more complex as we moved forward, so that people who were perhaps not as familiar with games could begin with simpler games that were easier to digest before progressing to more complicated games that were more difficult to play on a conceptual level if you weren’t familiar with RTS conventions for example.[/u]

My personal position on this was that the editors are the heart of Spore, and that we should bond them as much as possible to gameplay, but the boon and the curse of games is that they’re giant collaborations. In the end I think it’s an interesting spin on creator based content – other developers who are interested in it as a theme can look at essentially four or five different implementations of the idea and hopefully move forward from that learning and make other great games.[/quote]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48372.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48372.page GMT

I'm in the credits as Michael "Flux" Chang. Go check it in the credits section of the options menu.
And here's my old website from college (2005) users.design.ucla.edu/~mflux along with resume and all of that jazz. Anyway, take it or leave it. Those are my thoughts.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48374.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48374.page GMT Utterly pointless. Whether you were an intern or not is, in fact, irrelevant also.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48376.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48376.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48380.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48380.page GMT
Anyway! Tell us more about working at maxis!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48385.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48385.page GMT Doh... sorry you feel that way. I guess you're right, it's possibly irrelevant. I was directing that at the poster above me (pics or it didn't happen).

Didn't think I would get this sort of reactions within -3- minutes of posting. This is probably why Maxis developers are never allowed to post. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48386.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48386.page GMT
[quote=mflux][quote]Utterly pointless. Whether you were an intern or not is, in fact, irrelevant also. [/quote]
Doh... sorry you feel that way. I guess you're right, it's possibly irrelevant. I was directing that at the poster above me (pics or it didn't happen).

Didn't think I would get this sort of reactions within -3- minutes of posting. This is probably why Maxis developers are never allowed to post. [/quote]

I was parodying the one above mine. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48388.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48388.page GMT
Cheers.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48405.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48405.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48409.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48409.page GMT Doh... sorry you feel that way. I guess you're right, it's possibly irrelevant. I was directing that at the poster above me (pics or it didn't happen).

Didn't think I would get this sort of reactions within -3- minutes of posting. This is probably why Maxis developers are never allowed to post. [/quote]

Try your best to ignore any of the groaning lackies.

While I'm not going to jump on you and kiss you like a fanatic for actually living inside the Maxis building (I want to so bad ;p) I would like to note I really enjoyed your posts.

Mainly because they sounded a lot like my big post. Not to imply anything, just makes me feel like I have an idea of what it should of been.

Much love and I wish you the best on the forums if you do stay.

[quote=tyger42]Ah, the "insider comes to bash the game" troll gambit. Classic.[/quote]

You might want to look up what a troll and bashing are in relation to a forum.

You failed miserably at accurately defining this guy (I assume male) with either of those words.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48416.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48416.page GMT [quote]There are many challenges with this – first, there’s just the basic argument that in a storytelling game like Spore (and our core aim was always to enable people to tell their own stories, not to ‘win’ per se) limiting people’s creativity is an essentially catastrophic decision and the more gameplay you bond to editors, the more you remove the player’s ability to tell their story of a mushroom headed toilet bowl who terrorized the earth, or the evil looking fang toothed monster who struggled to befriend the universe. If this was based purely on physical parts, both those stories are impossible, or at least terribly hard to communicate to players.
[/quote][/quote]

That was hilarious! "In a storytelling game like Spore..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! OMG! I guess they crossed that stream now didn't they? *snicker*]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48420.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48420.page GMT
Now I just need to see someone reveal an exclusive photograph of someone from EA handing Will Wright a big bag of money in order to ruin the game.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48421.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48421.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48425.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48425.page GMT
Anyway, we're pretty much on the same page except for me the biggest problem is the depth of the galaxy. It's so THIN. Shallow is too thick to describe Spore. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48430.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48430.page GMT
Now I just need to see someone reveal an exclusive photograph of someone from EA handing Will Wright a big bag of money in order to ruin the game.[/quote]

I bet he'd still cry.

It's not like the guy NEEDS a big bag of money. He's kind of already rich I imagine.

Plus I've never tagged him as being a prick. Even now I'm in denial.

It's like someone telling you Jesus used to fondle children and steal their lunch money. If you believe in Jesus that can be very hard to swallow.

Just as now I am having a hard time believing Will wasn't nailed to a wall and punched in the balls so these changes could be done. I believe in him too much. He's kind of my gaming Jesus.

Basically Will Wright and Sid Meier's (One's he actually has a say in, not ones that just use his name like the new railroads...) are the last two people that make games I like anymore.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48431.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48431.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48432.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48432.page GMT
I don't want to taint it with more ideas, the ideas stated were gold, some I've never even heard or thought of before.

Edit: I forgot to mention, good luck to whatever it is you now do.

I hope one day they will let us exchange this game for that complex version even WITH the risks.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48435.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48435.page GMT What does that make you then?

Mchang: I agree absolutely with everything you put in here. Maxis dropped the ball in unbelievable style by not including morphology. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in the meetings where they decided "Let's make morphology not matter and let people make octopus toilets for two hours before they get tired of the game and uninstall their $50 pig-in-a-poke."

I've been saying everything you wrote here since the game came out. You're 100% correct on everything that you said, the debacle is pathetic.

Metacritic score is 4.6 now, it's fallen by .1 since yesterday. Xfire scores have flattened since I've been watching them, 9,177 users with 1,091,646 played per day (among Xfire users). I'll be interested to track these scores as time wears on, I predict that they'll be crashing as word of the shallow gameplay propagates more.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48437.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48437.page GMT
That seems to be more in line with evolution than 'plop a part and watch the one legged giant head run faster than an antelope!']]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48444.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48444.page GMT
Since I don't have any proof, it might not be true (I'm not even sure). But maybe someone will remember?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48471.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48471.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48477.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48477.page GMT
I think you hit the nail on the head as far as the reason for all the whining. It just seems wrong that I can create a creature that SHOULD be top-heavy and wobbling all over trying to keep balanced, but doesn't. My creativity actually feels stifled, as I try to only create creatures that would actually walk and move the way the game animates them.

Again, it's fantastic to hear there's more than one camp within the development team. Perhaps we'll see a comeback of the original systems and end up with better gameplay afterall.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48499.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48499.page GMT
The tasks in the game are repetitive, but I'd like to suggest that they aren't nearly as repetitive as browsing through the sporepedia. Since i enjoy the latter so much, I came to realize that each mode of the game is intended to be a mini game that allows you to browse the sporepedia. If you take the time to pause, look at, read comments and comment on, every single creature you come across then the fact that the game is repetitive doesn't really matter. The real fun is in creating things, and finding other people's creations. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48548.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48548.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48558.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48558.page GMT The tale of Spore is a sad one indeed.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48596.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48596.page GMT Some things that have been posted elsewhere, but I've also experienced.

Many of the games objectives are actually chores. This recalls some of the worst design-choices from *bad word* Sims Online. It's ironic that [b]MMO-style grinding somehow showed up in a single player game[/b]. "Your quest is to kill 5 creatures over that hill right there." This doesn't seem to get any better in space "Your quest is to kill 5 [i]infected[/i] creatures over that hill right there."

[/quote]

This is my biggest gripe with this game.
I [b]hate[/b] grinding.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48607.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48607.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48610.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48610.page GMT
I agree - though I fully believe him.

The point I agree with most is the lack of being able to created pre-configured colonies. Having to drag eight turrets [b]every single time[/b] then the same pattern of buildings again and again is just killing me. What is most bizarre is that they were testing this game for YEARS. Did no one play Space stage long enough to get a sense of how excruciatingly repetitive (but often necessary) this process is?

I can live with the repetitive quests: no game can have infinite variety, and the Badges and Collections giving visiting any planet some kind of constructive, useful role.

Generally I am very impressed with Spore though, and love playing it.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48617.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48617.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48649.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48649.page GMT
You say this and you seem to be implying they had you working on UI... But from an actual UI person I can think of one very good reason why you don't want multiple races in one system: Systems are marked by who owns them in the star map. Marking shared ownership would be confusing, and overwhelming.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48679.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48679.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48709.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48709.page GMT mflux wrotelanet to Planet wars - Currently the game does not allow two types of sentient life in one Star System. Why? This seems like a really artificially imposed limit. There's no UI / gameplay reason I can possibly think of that would require this limit. Having wars fought from planet to planet (two planets home to two space-faring species) is a staple of science fiction (War of the Worlds), and it allows some early introduction of alien races, early space flight and battle (instead of inspecting some random artifact), and produces some cool dynamic.



You say this and you seem to be implying they had you working on UI... But from an actual UI person I can think of one very good reason why you don't want multiple races in one system: Systems are marked by who owns them in the star map. Marking shared ownership would be confusing, and overwhelming.[/quote]

I respectfully disagree with you, though. Seeing a collection of spices from galaxy view was easy enough. Given that there aren't more than a handful of planets (1-5 colonizable planets at most from what I saw).

What's more problematic than that UI design is actually the fact that there are no race names when hovering over a system. The UI declares the system name and names for all the planets, but gives a tiny, unreadable icon for that race (I'm on a 30" monitor and I still can't see it!). This makes finding and locating a particular race an unnecessary challenge.

Speaking of UI design careers, currently I'm working as a creative director for a UI prototyping company. I know, I probably sound snobby, but you wanted to assert that you're an "actual UI person" I'm a UI person, too. Go us!
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48718.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48718.page GMT
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48720.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48720.page GMT

Mfux, as someone who worked on the game, can you confirm or deny the claims that whole EPs (at least 3 by some accounts) of content are hidden in the game coding so EA can get more money from selling EPs that do little more than unlock hidden content? I'm not so sure about most of those claims, but I'm certain that what I'm seeing in game does not account for 4 GB.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48726.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48726.page GMT
No I do! I can see why other hardcore gamers would want more, but I bought Spore, knowing what I was getting. I wanted a family friendly sandbox. I watched [i]RECENT[/i] trailors, trialed the creature creator and THIS Spore was what I was expecting.
And I tend to call myself a hardcore gamer ( I have played ALOT of games on several consoles and the PC for over 25 years), but REAL hardcore gamers would not consider me so, due to the games I enjoy playing.
But again, although I like it the way it is now. I could not even imagine what it takes for developers to make all this happen on my PC, so I rarely complain about things I know nothing about. But it seems original poster knows his stuff and all of his suggestions sound like GOOD ones.

And [quote]jackuul wrote:
Never cross the streams? Haven't we all learned that by now? Only cross when threatened by Gozer. [/quote]

GOOD STUFF! ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48732.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48732.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48735.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48735.page GMT

Mfux, as someone who worked on the game, can you confirm or deny the claims that whole EPs (at least 3 by some accounts) of content are hidden in the game coding so EA can get more money from selling EPs that do little more than unlock hidden content? I'm not so sure about most of those claims, but I'm certain that what I'm seeing in game does not account for 4 GB.[/quote]

I'll deny it for him. There's about 4GB of content in spore, for sure. Think about it, planet scripts for 500,000 stars worth of planets. Creature data is just a few kb, and I'm sure planets scripts are around the same but scale that up to over 1000000 planets and it's more than 1GB right there, just to generate planets.
Spore is a huge game.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48737.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48737.page GMT Well now you are telling your age, be careful KIDDING Anyway, yes this game has been being worked on for so long. Any input you had on it, and all the other developers, I appreciate. I like the game, but LOVE your suggestions ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48740.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48740.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48746.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48746.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48748.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48748.page GMT
You say this and you seem to be implying they had you working on UI... But from an actual UI person I can think of one very good reason why you don't want multiple races in one system: Systems are marked by who owns them in the star map. Marking shared ownership would be confusing, and overwhelming.[/quote]

And here's how that could be solved:

An NPC only mini-phase between Civ and Space that is "pre-space" or whatever. Civilizations in this phase have access to fly to the worlds within their system only until there is only one civ left in the system, at which time they become true space-faring civs. Their own little quest for an interstellar drive if you will.

As far as the UI goes, who says it can't be improved? The current UI sucks ass. How in the hell can you color the system with the empire's color (what a limited palette that is too by the way,) show a microscopic picture of the empire occupying said system and not include the SPORE empire's name? SPORE. Simply not coloring the system with an empire stamp until it is true space faring, giving it a separate icon from the little mini-world and the little mini-spaceship would suffice. Your post implies that things can't be changed. I counter that they can indeed be changed, and this proposed change is relatively simple to put together, and adds gameplay.

But I digress. Once a system is space faring, no other civs can pop up. At any time pre space faring, another civ can pop up (except the player's home system, or alternatively include that and you have to take em out before you get the quest for the interstellar drive. GASP--more gameplay!).

Imagine coming across a tribal system and going to their moon, T3ing it, and plopping down a monolith on both worlds. That would be fun to watch.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48768.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48768.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48772.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48772.page GMT
Does it matter if he is who he say he is? Does it? 95% of this topic was about opinions about the game, opinions which i agree fully with.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48783.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48783.page GMT
Not too smart, guy. You never know when you will need somene at Maxis to say something nice about you. Prolly not gonna happen now.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48823.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48823.page GMT
Not too smart, guy. You never know when you will need somene at Maxis to say something nice about you. Prolly not gonna happen now.

[/quote]
HOW? He was not disrespectful or mean. Most of his post was opinion on how to improve the game, good ones, at that. In no way do I see that as Maxis bashing.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48829.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48829.page GMT

Internship with a game company though? I wanted to something like that, until I actually was in the position to apply for one and found out the ridiculous hours and requirements! That and the pay wasn't very good either, but there isn't exactly a large selection of game companies in my region. I think I'd get more satisfaction out of working for Northrop Grumman as opposed to Big Huge Games anyway.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48834.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48834.page GMT
A problem with SimLife was the eventual "optimal" creature. In nature there is no such thing, because a very specialized creature is more rapidly driven extinct once the environment changes even a smidgen.

Energy budget can be used to snuff "UBER" creatures - too much of too many abilities, and you end up having to eat so often you starve by sleeping. And sleeping - what about being nocturnal? Or having huge eyes? Balance can also do this - the more aggressive and dangerous the creature, the more it is a "loner" that has a harder time finding mates (more social required to woo, for instance). ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48879.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48879.page GMT just because some of you stop everything in your life for a video game and its gets old to YOU faster....that not tha gem thats YOU need to SLOW DOWN LOL ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48941.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48941.page GMT
A problem with SimLife was the eventual "optimal" creature. In nature there is no such thing, because a very specialized creature is more rapidly driven extinct once the environment changes even a smidgen.

Energy budget can be used to snuff "UBER" creatures - too much of too many abilities, and you end up having to eat so often you starve by sleeping. And sleeping - what about being nocturnal? Or having huge eyes? Balance can also do this - the more aggressive and dangerous the creature, the more it is a "loner" that has a harder time finding mates (more social required to woo, for instance). [/quote]

have to be careful putting to many "this part is for that and this one is for this other thing" rules to this kinda creation.....cause we all could end up only being able to remake what real life already made
some points here are good....but pacients maby? let the game style develope? or pile up tha rules and watch the creativity get stiffled]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48947.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48947.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48988.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48988.page GMT Doh... sorry you feel that way. I guess you're right, it's possibly irrelevant. I was directing that at the poster above me (pics or it didn't happen).

Didn't think I would get this sort of reactions within -3- minutes of posting. This is probably why Maxis developers are never allowed to post. [/quote]

I very much appreciated the time it took to post this and I read all of it in detail not because it was a Maxis intern's feedback, but mainly because the thoughts were well communicated on design decisions, shortcomings, and future possibilities. I too am in the industry, and although a competitor, I still want SPORE to succeed based on its original concept and ambitious and innovative possibilities. Sandbox mode anyone?

Thank you mflux for the informative and well thought out post!

Later,
~J]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48999.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/48999.page GMT

Mfux, as someone who worked on the game, can you confirm or deny the claims that whole EPs (at least 3 by some accounts) of content are hidden in the game coding so EA can get more money from selling EPs that do little more than unlock hidden content? I'm not so sure about most of those claims, but I'm certain that what I'm seeing in game does not account for 4 GB.[/quote]

I'll deny it for him. There's about 4GB of content in spore, for sure. Think about it, planet scripts for 500,000 stars worth of planets. Creature data is just a few kb, and I'm sure planets scripts are around the same but scale that up to over 1000000 planets and it's more than 1GB right there, just to generate planets.
Spore is a huge game.[/quote]

4GB is whats originally installed on your computer (the core application coding, animation, texture, and mesh files), the 1G is your galaxy data and possibly hardcoded Maxis stuff. And scripting? The actual spore application file is about 35 megabytes on HD. And we've all heard about the flora editor, right?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49019.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49019.page GMT

Ditto!!!!! Thanks for sharing your experience with the development of the game and your ideas. I would have loved to have seen the things you mentioned kept in the game.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49112.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49112.page GMT

...I take it back; the OP makes me want to [i]SCREAM.[/i]

And yes to almost all the criticism, [i]ESPECIALLY[/i] the grinding, and the one-size-fits-all editors where [i]design doesn't matter![/i] *growl*
It's like someone said, "Okay, let's make a game with [i]concepts[/i] that RocketGirl here adores, but we'll make the actual [i]gameplay[/i] everything she hates...go!"

Here's hoping they make a Spore 2...and flat-out [i]state and mean it[/i] that it'll be the other Spore, the [i]GOOD[/i] Spore, the complicated, amazing, interesting, experiments-and-failure-based-learning Spore that we were [i]TOLD[/i] we were going to get, which is described in the OP and the 2005 video, and which was [i]the very basis for why I wanted Spore![/i]

Here's hoping. But I @#$%ing doubt it.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49117.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49117.page GMT
I love the morphology drives function section of your post. I've seen many players asking for the same thing in the Feedback section. I would have loved to see how that worked.

I think your post was honest and open, it was great to see the insight into the development of the game.

I also agree about the sad repetitiveness of chores in the space phase, it's like a dull boring MMORG, the kind that don't keep my attention long. A greater draw into story line would have been nice.

Overall, I think the game is an amazing achievement, I only play cell, creature and tribal phase much, but that alone is money well spent.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49130.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49130.page GMT

...I take it back; the OP makes me want to [i]SCREAM.[/i]

And yes to almost all the criticism, [i]ESPECIALLY[/i] the grinding, and the one-size-fits-all editors where [i]design doesn't matter![/i] *growl*
It's like someone said, "Okay, let's make a game with [i]concepts[/i] that RocketGirl here adores, but we'll make the actual [i]gameplay[/i] everything she hates...go!"

Here's hoping they make a Spore 2...and flat-out [i]state and mean it[/i] that it'll be the other Spore, the [i]GOOD[/i] Spore, the complicated, amazing, interesting, experiments-and-failure-based-learning Spore that we were [i]TOLD[/i] we were going to get, which is described in the OP and the 2005 video, and which was [i]the very basis for why I wanted Spore![/i]

Here's hoping. But I @#$%ing doubt it.

[/quote]


AMEN to that!

I'm about to moreMoney to the max then finish this crap game. I'll be back in a couple of weeks after Maxis have released the next patch and the Q&A will have been answered. Hopefully the game will have improved, albeit a tiny bit. If my question is answered and I get a good reply, then, and only then, will I consider gripping the handrails and fight to keep that sinking boat afloat.

Otherwise, I'll be a rat and leave ship. I'll go play Star Control. (Yes, I do still have it!)

*Cheers and waves to mates*

Hasta la vista!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49181.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49181.page GMT
Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with almost every suggestion and complaint found in the OP's second post regarding gameplay. I, like many others, was a bit disappointed with the final product of Spore. I still play and enjoy it, but there are a lot of elements, especially in the Space Phase, that could use a little more thought to make them interesting and continually enjoyable.

Would it be so hard, for example, to have a "defense fleet" of a handful of ships that could be purchased or earned through badges in the late stage of the game? This defense fleet could be issued commands, similar to the vehicles of the Civ phase, and the player could delegate simple responsibilities like planetary defense and ecological preservation to these vessels. The trade off, of course, would be that that managing this fleet and responding with due force to attacks (which should, as the OP pointed out, be somewhat more randomized in their compositions) is a balance. Anyway, I'm no game designer, this is just one of many ways that laymen like me have proposed to improve the somewhat dull and repetitive Space Phase.

Now on to the first post, regarding creation and its connection to gameplay. Its fascinating to see that there was once a game where [i]every[/i] decision you made in (at least the Creature) Creator had a real effect on the game. I had begun to wonder if such a reality ever even existed. But this begs an interesting question. How many people would be here complaining if such a system [i]had[/i] been implemented? There's no way to be sure, of course. The most vocal group is always going to be the one with an axe to grind. But I can already see the complaints, people might get frustrated more easily by this game.

The question it would seem that the developers posed is simple: is this a game about creativity, or evolution? Both were presented as objectives of the game from the very beginning. The problem is that creativity is not an interchangeable quality with evolution. Though the two are certainly related, evolution is about random mutation and natural selection. Evolution (in real life, at least) is shaped by countless environmental factors including but not limited to: predators, food sources, natural disasters, climate changes, temperature ranges, the density and type of atmosphere, weather patterns, radiation levels, and geographical barricades. Creativity, on the other hand, involves the specific creation of something with an "idea." Evolution (so far as we know) doesn't have ideas, per se, it has accidents. Those accidents can then either prove to help or hinder the creature in question.

The system described by the OP emphasizes evolution. This is not a "bad" thing. The system utilized by Spore emphasizes creative control, (almost) completely forsaking the concept of simulating evolution entirely. The point has become to make what you want to make and then play around with it, rather than developing a creature that is a direct response to its environment a la natural selection. This, also, is not a "bad" thing. Some people might [i]want[/i] to create a specific creature, vehicle, or UFO without worrying too much about the million different variables that might affect its worldly performance. Obviously, others want the former, experiencing the reality of evolution (or at least a close facsimile) regardless of what their end results might look like.

In finalizing the details of this game, it would appear that Maxis leaned toward the "casual gamer" market, emphasizing this as a game of ultimate creativity rather than simulated evolution. Some might argue that "enough" evolutionary components are in the game, since you DO have to change and shape your creature to suit those around you. Others might contend that the game is TOO hampering on creative decisions, forcing you to choose the best parts for your creature even if the hand or foot you really wanted them to have is at the base level of a "category."

Either way, I guess what I'm saying is that you can't get a game that delivers both unlimited creativity and realistic evolutionary procedure without sacrificing something from one or the other. I imagine there are people who would be upset no matter which end path Maxis had favored. In the end, they decided to balance between evolution and creativity, and it would appear that ultimate creativity won most of those battles. Many, like myself, would have liked to have seen more emphasis on evolution and natural selection, even at the cost of not being able to make exactly what you envision. But it is, ultimately, a more complicated game that I imagine would appeal to people in a very different way from the one that currently exists. We don't know how popular it would have been, or how many people would be here whining on the boards about the limitations on creativity, simply because that game doesn't exist.

Will Wright described a game several years ago that seemed too good to be true. It offered an incredible facsimile of evolution, gameplay inspired by numerous genres, and unlimited creative control. Now, it would seem, that game [i]did[/i] turn out to be too good to be true. Maxis was forced to make a choice when they were balancing the creators: should they emphasize creativity or evolution? It would seem that they tried both and came to the conclusion that more people would enjoy the creative aspects. Remember how much they were emphasizing that ANYONE could pick up the creator and make an interesting creature? It would seem that that would not be the case were evolution emphasized over creativity. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were right, but in the end, someone was [i]bound[/i] to be disappointed by their execution. These are just my thoughts, of course, but the OP's post gave me a lot to think about, and these are my conclusions.

In closing, I'd just like to say thanks to the OP for sharing all of this incredible information. I hope that this post encourages further lively debate rather than being closed. While I fear we may never see the game described in the first post, there's still a lot to enjoy from this game. I am sorry to those who were primarily interested in this game for its scientific simulations (the ever-vocal rocketgirl comes to mind), but it would seem that Maxis made a hard choice about balance that came down in favor of creativity. I doubt we'll ever see the game that promised a serious evolution simulator, at least from Maxis.

There are still plenty of things, however, that could improve this game, and I think the OP's second post highlights some of the major problems and possible fixes for these. Perhaps, in time, Spore will itself evolve into a game that, if not exactly what we were promised several years ago, at least maintains much of the originality and fun that seemed implicit in those early demos. Until then, however, I am not one to complain. I appreciate the kind of work that goes into building a game as huge and original as Spore, and will enjoy it as is for now (as long as the darn thing works... the technical problems with this game need to be a priority for the developers, I feel).]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49201.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49201.page GMT
It's a shame that a great creation with such amount of potential Spore had in in it's early days (I remember watching all the vids from game conventions with WW talking 'bout the game) has been simplified that much to meet the requirements of todays market.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49214.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49214.page GMT

I'm in the credits as Michael "Flux" Chang. Go check it in the credits section of the options menu.
And here's my old website from college (2005) users.design.ucla.edu/~mflux along with resume and all of that jazz. Anyway, take it or leave it. Those are my thoughts.[/quote]

You just created this forum account Sept 22, 2008... Thats three days ago. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49230.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49230.page GMT Would it be so hard, for example, to have a "defense fleet" of a handful of ships that could be purchased or earned through badges in the late stage of the game?[/quote]

I really, [i]REALLY[/i] hate the badge system. I much prefer the allocate-resources-to-building-and-research model of the Master of Orion series. Badges and achievements mean that advancement is tied to the player's actions and not to the player's ability to build and manage an empire.
Realistically, I should be able to build an empire, and then sit back and do [i]NOTHING[/i]...yet still advance because the empire is still chugging along. This would free me up to actually [i]DO[/i] things while my empire tended to itself, instead of being forced to meet minimum requirements of [i]adventuring[/i] in order to acquire [i]technology.[/i] (Schadenwawa? That doesn't even make [i]sense![/i])

[quote]
Now on to the first post, regarding creation and its connection to gameplay. Its fascinating to see that there was once a game where [i]every[/i] decision you made in (at least the Creature) Creator had a real effect on the game. I had begun to wonder if such a reality ever even existed. But this begs an interesting question. How many people would be here complaining if such a system [i]had[/i] been implemented? There's no way to be sure, of course. The most vocal group is always going to be the one with an axe to grind. But I can already see the complaints, people might get frustrated more easily by this game.
[/quote]

Of [i]COURSE[/i] there'd be complaints...but at least they wouldn't be, "We were lied to/misled!" and "Why was this game dumbed down?" or even "Whatinhell happened to the original vision, here?" I mean, what game doesn't get complaints? I can certainly complain about my favorite games...but those complaints usually aren't deal-breakers. Spore's were; I uninstalled yesterday, and I feel better for having done so.

But he fact is that the your-design-affects-physics-and-gameplay aspect is a very, very large part of what attracted me to Spore in the first place. That they took it out feels like a betrayal; that they didn't explicitly [i]STATE[/i]--prominently and unambiguously--that this had been removed from the game feels like being lied to. And, again, I'm not the only one who feels that way.

No matter how you look at it, that state of affairs cannot be good for the future of Spore or Maxis, especially since there are plenty of people willing to shout their displeasure from the rooftops; goodness knows that my LJ f-list has gotten an earful.

[quote]
The question it would seem that the developers posed is simple: is this a game about creativity, or evolution?
[/quote]

Why must that be an either/or question?

[quote]
Both were presented as objectives of the game from the very beginning. The problem is that creativity is not an interchangeable quality with evolution.
[/quote]

So make the CC be about evolution, while the hut, building, vehicle, and UFO creators be about creativity.

[quote]
Though the two are certainly related, evolution is about random mutation and natural selection. Evolution (in real life, at least) is shaped by countless environmental factors including but not limited to: predators, food sources, natural disasters, climate changes, temperature ranges, the density and type of atmosphere, weather patterns, radiation levels, and geographical barricades. Creativity, on the other hand, involves the specific creation of something with an "idea." Evolution (so far as we know) doesn't have ideas, per se, it has accidents. Those accidents can then either prove to help or hinder the creature in question.
[/quote]

Even if the player's creature didn't evolve, per se, at least the rest of the world could.

[quote]
The system described by the OP emphasizes evolution. This is not a "bad" thing. The system utilized by Spore emphasizes creative control, (almost) completely forsaking the concept of simulating evolution entirely. The point has become to make what you want to make and then play around with it, rather than developing a creature that is a direct response to its environment a la natural selection. This, also, is not a "bad" thing.
[/quote]

Actually, it [i]IS.[/i]
Because creature design is now a matter of creativity, and stats are all that matter, which means that the gameplay has been dumbed down exponentially. Building a better creature doesn't teach anybody anything, it's just about stats; in the original vision, [i]design mattered,[/i] adding complexity, variety, and failure-based learning into the mix, creating some very interesting gameplay possibilities [i]AND[/i] the chance to learn some interesting principles about life.
Not only would that have been tons of fun to experiment with, but it would have been in line with WW's original vision for Spore. All in all, I'd say taking it out was a Very Bad Thing™.

[quote]
Some people might [i]want[/i] to create a specific creature, vehicle, or UFO without worrying too much about the million different variables that might affect its worldly performance.
[/quote]

Then those people shouldn't be [i]playing[/i] this game.
Let me put this clearly and unambiguously: [i]complexity was the attraction to this game.[/i] From the start, many of us saw how complicated Spore was going to be and started salivating.

[quote]
In finalizing the details of this game, it would appear that Maxis leaned toward the "casual gamer" market, emphasizing this as a game of ultimate creativity rather than simulated evolution.
[/quote]

And given how many times WW stated that the intent of the game was actually to be a kind of learning toy and [i]NOT[/i] just Lego-and-cPlay-Doh construction set, maybe you an see why I and many others feel frustrated, betrayed, and lied to.

[quote]
Some might argue that "enough" evolutionary components are in the game, since you DO have to change and shape your creature to suit those around you.
[/quote]

No, you really don't. All you have to do is add [i]parts.[/i] The shape of your creature doesn't matter [i]at all.[/i]
In a way, that hampers [i]MY[/i] creativity...by creating a "why bother?" situation.

[quote]
Either way, I guess what I'm saying is that you can't get a game that delivers both unlimited creativity and realistic evolutionary procedure without sacrificing something from one or the other. I imagine there are people who would be upset no matter which end path Maxis had favored.
[/quote]

Not really. If Maxis has chosen to stick with the original intent of the game, much of the "I feel lied to!" complaining would never have existed in the first place.

[quote]
In the end, they decided to balance between evolution and creativity, and it would appear that ultimate creativity won most of those battles. Many, like myself, would have liked to have seen more emphasis on evolution and natural selection, even at the cost of not being able to make exactly what you envision. But it is, ultimately, a more complicated game that I imagine would appeal to people in a very different way from the one that currently exists.
[/quote]

Yes, it would.

And to Maxis: [b][u][i]I STILL WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME![/b][/u][/i]

[quote]
We don't know how popular it would have been, or how many people would be here whining on the boards about the limitations on creativity, simply because that game doesn't exist.
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? Of [i]COURSE[/i] we know how popular that game would have been; it's where the initial fanbase [i]came from.[/i] There were tons of people salivating to play that game!

In case you haven't noticed, I'm quite deeply bitter about this issue. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49253.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49253.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49257.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49257.page GMT
If Maxis won't make the game, then they @#$%ing well [i]SHOULD.[/i] There's enough geekery on the internet to make that game.

In fact, if anybody wants a fair-to-middlin 3D artist on an open-source project, I will [i]HAPPILY[/i] take on the job.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49284.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49284.page GMT
i'm also very good at providing comic relief, inappropriate comments, and i have the stunning ability to say exactly the wrong thing at exactly the right time.

i have the space to host a small army of programmers, coders, and other assorted geeks. admittedly, you'll probably all want to telecommute due to my "no working in the house nude" rule.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49308.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49308.page GMT
I like cheese!

[quote]
i'm also very good at providing comic relief, inappropriate comments, and i have the stunning ability to say exactly the wrong thing at exactly the right time.
[/quote]

Heh; were we separated at birth?

[quote]
i have the space to host a small army of programmers, coders, and other assorted geeks. admittedly, you'll probably all want to telecommute due to my "no working in the house nude" rule.[/quote]

S'okay; I can work nude on the lawn. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49314.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49314.page GMT
in order to preserve my sense of decor on the farm, i'm going to require you wear bodypaint that will create the illusion of a stone sculpture.

otherwise it's just lawn pr0n.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49320.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49320.page GMT In case you haven't noticed, I'm quite deeply bitter about this issue. [/quote]

And the fact is, I don't disagree with your right to be. You're doing exactly what you should be as a fan who was disappointed in a company's product: complaining. The voices of you and people like you will let Maxis and other developers know what many of us would like to see from a game, elements of which might be included in future updates of Spore or even games from entirely different developers.

You [i]were[/i] lied to. Fact is, most gamers are lied to when they follow the development of a major game from a major developer. Details are released early, and more often than not the fans (like you) get to arguing about those details. Its becoming more and more common to see designers changing elements of their biggest games based on the demands and desires of their fan base.

The game we saw several years ago was a different one from the one we have today, to be sure. Is it less complex? Most certainly. I wouldn't argue with that. Again, it seems to me that they sacrificed complexity and simulated evolution in favor of accessibility and creative control. This is just my opinion, of course. Your opinion is that they moved in a bad direction, that you were betrayed. I've heard from a lot of people who feel the same way as you. I've heard from many others who are just as upset but for different reasons. And most of the people I know, the people who are just enjoying the game in their homes, who don't really play many video games anyway and would never even think to log into an Internet forum, most of those people don't have any problem with the game at all. Many of them had only heard about Spore and were quite pleased with the end result. A more complicated game might have put them off, since they're not interested in anything more than a fun toy or distraction. Maybe most of those people would have returned the game that we were promised in 2005, or maybe they would all keep it and find it extremely engaging.

My point here is that this is all opinion. We don't know how the game would have been received if it had been different. Maybe it would have satisfied every gripe you have now, but left you even more frustrated with other setbacks and limitations. You're upset because this game is missing features and complexity from the 2005 demo. This is perfectly reasonable, as you know this to be true. But any opinion that it would have been inherently or certainly better if those features and complexity were included in the 2008 version is just that: an opinion. In your opinion, you probably would have liked the game more if it were closer to the 2005 version. I don't disagree. But in my opinion, there might be an equal or greater number of people who would have been put off by the game you and I wanted, a market that Maxis definitely wanted to hit with this game. This is, in your opinion, a bad thing, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. That does not make your opinion a fact.

At the end of the day, Maxis is a business that wants to make money. What they do with their game is their own prerogative, just as it is your right to disagree with their decisions and argue vocally that the changes they made in the game in the last few years were for the worse. A lot of people might agree with you. Others may not agree at all, but most probably agree with you on some points and not on others. This is the nature of opinion, and one of the largest faults with Spore: everyone wanted something different from the game. Maybe this is Mr. Wright's fault for painting too broad an image of Spore at the beginning, or maybe its the fault of all those people buying up Sims expansions and motivating Maxis to aim for the lowest common denominator. At this point, we're just not sure what the exact motivations were.

Yes, you were lied to. More accurately, I suppose, Maxis had the audacity to change their game. And yes, they did change it dramatically from the original concept. My first post speculated at some of the reasoning behind this, but as I said, these are all just half-baked theories that I put out to encourage thought on the subject. You liked the original concept. You don't like the final game. You are not alone. But this is also not the first game to undergo changes like this, and in the end, I don't know if either of us can say with certainty which version of the game would have been the [i]best[/i]. When I say best, I mean best for everyone, because everyone has a different opinion, and many people wanted different things from this game. Maybe there was no single Spore that could have satisfied [i]everyone[/i]. Maybe there was, and its exactly as you say. Maybe the Spore that was released was the best that Spore could have been.

Bottom line, all I'm saying is that you are entitled to your opinion, but don't confuse that with fact. YES, this is a less complex game than the one many of us were expecting. YES, we were lied to, but I don't believe this was done maliciously. Like many games, they presented an idea and later changed much about the concept. They were trying to deliver a game they thought would appeal to more people. Maybe they tried and tried to make your game, but they just couldn't get it to work and play in a fun way. We can't be certain. I hope you keep expressing your opinions about what Spore should have been, and I do understand and sympathize with your bitterness. But you can't be sure of things like how "popular that game would have been," how much "complaining would never have existed," or that "complexity was the attraction to this game." For you, me, and many others, maybe this would have been true. But this is not a guarantee of ANY measure for the wide and varied fan base that Spore ultimately has. Maybe you disagree about this fan base, but if you've learned anything from my seemingly endless rant, let it be that I am usually in favor of agreeing to disagree.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49340.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49340.page GMT
seriously though, i have to agree with many of the posts here. it would be interesting to see a Spore where body size/shape/texture mattered. where evolutionary paths are slightly more rigid (you can't just pop four more sets of eyes on your creature at whim), and where there is more of a storyline.

Raise your hand if you would like to see OpenSporce!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49349.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49349.page GMT
in order to preserve my sense of decor on the farm, i'm going to require you wear bodypaint that will create the illusion of a stone sculpture.[/quote]

Believe it or not, it won't be the first time...

Okay, I wasn't painted as [i]stone,[/i] but...I've done the bodypaint thing. We've got this little thing in Seattle called the Fremont Solstice Parade...? It's traditionally crashed by 300 naked, painted bicyclists at the beginning. I, um, don't own a bike, so I'm usually on rollerblades...

[quote]Bottom line, all I'm saying is that you are entitled to your opinion, but don't confuse that with fact. YES, this is a less complex game than the one many of us were expecting. YES, we were lied to, but I don't believe this was done maliciously.[/quote]

I don't [i]CARE[/i] if it was done maliciously.
If someone ran me over with their car, do you think it would really matter to me if they [i]meant[/i] to do it or if it was an accident? I still [i]hurt.[/i]

...and I would seek restitution in either case.

[quote]I hope you keep expressing your opinions about what Spore should have been, and I do understand and sympathize with your bitterness. But you can't be sure of things like how "popular that game would have been," how much "complaining would never have existed," or that "complexity was the attraction to this game." [/quote]

I can't be sure, no, I can't be certain...but I can be very, very, [i]VERY[/i] convinced.
It's not like I'm operating in the dark here; I [i]AM[/i] basing what I'm saying off of evidence and reason.

[quote]Maybe you disagree about this fan base, but if you've learned anything from my seemingly endless rant, let it be that I am usually in favor of agreeing to disagree. [/quote]

Fine. You are; [i]I'm not.[/i]
I'm usually in favor of actually occasionally [i]getting my way.[/i] Agreeing to disagree usually satisfies [i]no one,[/i] and every now and then, I'd like to actually [i]win.[/i]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49356.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49356.page GMT [/quote]

I should start a running tally of the number of times/people who are unambiguously told I've worked as a video game artist who subsequently call me a coder. Heh.

[quote]
Raise your hand if you would like to see OpenSporce![/quote]

*raises hand*]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49360.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49360.page GMT
I think many of us considered Spore "critics" (even though I mildly enjoy the game) feel exactly the same thing... and we didn't even need to be a part of the team to see it. It's pretty blatant and obvious.

And to those doubters, of course the 2005 demo was NOT pre-rendered. Because as he's giving the demo he is actually clicking and conducting actions.. pre-rendered would mean he's sitting back watching a movie and explaining.

It's just disappointment that the old Maxis way of making games was completely thrown out the last 2-3 years and replaced with what we have now. Apparently Will Wright and Maxis forgot what kind of games got them here in the first place.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49373.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49373.page GMT

I'm in the credits as Michael "Flux" Chang. Go check it in the credits section of the options menu.
And here's my old website from college (2005) users.design.ucla.edu/~mflux along with resume and all of that jazz. Anyway, take it or leave it. Those are my thoughts.[/quote]

You just created this forum account Sept 22, 2008... Thats three days ago. [/quote]

So what... irrevelevant. I am sure most Maxis developers do NOT have a forum account.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49379.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49379.page GMT
If Maxis won't make the game, then they @#$%ing well [i]SHOULD.[/i] There's enough geekery on the internet to make that game.

In fact, if anybody wants a fair-to-middlin 3D artist on an open-source project, I will [i]HAPPILY[/i] take on the job.[/quote]

Can I be Will Wright? I'm a good motivator. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49384.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49384.page GMT
...I take it back; the OP makes me want to SCREAM. [/quote]

It makes me sad to think that not only did the 2005 Spore nearly exist, but there were people trying to keep it that way, with science based principles and a galaxy that could evolve, something that lived and breathed!

I feel the same way Rocketgirl. Something amazing was lost when a few developers got the great idea that a complex game was "too much" for all those so-called "casual gamers." I'm a casual gamer, by my own definition, and a complex game like SimCity 4 is perfect for my casual gaming style.

Thank you mflux for your post. It was informative, and put forth some very well thought out ideas. It's too bad that there are game devolpers who will always seem to underestimate the general gaming community.

I will continue to hope that Will Wright will be able create the game he had intended to make.

[quote=drish]It's just disappointment that the old Maxis way of making games was completely thrown out the last 2-3 years and replaced with what we have now. Apparently Will Wright and Maxis forgot what kind of games got them here in the first place. [/quote]

Exactly, though I think it's not so much that they forgot but that their ideas were pushed aside by those who just want "marketability."]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49388.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49388.page GMT So what... irrevelevant. I am sure most Maxis developers do NOT have a forum account.[/quote]

Actually lots of us have accounts and read the boards. Most don't post tho -

I'll vouch for Michael. He was an intern in the very early days of Spore development.

-caryl]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49389.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49389.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49390.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49390.page GMT
[img]http://i25.tinypic.com/903clu.jpg[/img]

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49399.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49399.page GMT
I agree - though I fully believe him.

The point I agree with most is the lack of being able to created pre-configured colonies. Having to drag eight turrets [b]every single time[/b] then the same pattern of buildings again and again is just killing me. What is most bizarre is that they were testing this game for YEARS. Did no one play Space stage long enough to get a sense of how excruciatingly repetitive (but often necessary) this process is?

I can live with the repetitive quests: no game can have infinite variety, and the Badges and Collections giving visiting any planet some kind of constructive, useful role.

Generally I am very impressed with Spore though, and love playing it.[/quote]
First sorry if this got brought up already. But...

You know I'd wish building colonies for different purposes was an option. Instead of a bunch of Mining colonies you were allowed to make resort colonies. I'd picture Resort world would either directly make spore bucks and/or positively influence any nearby empire into befriending you. Then laying colony floor plans would make sense.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49416.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49416.page GMT
[img]http://i25.tinypic.com/903clu.jpg[/img]

[/quote]
OMG, that is ME right now. Just made fresh popcorn. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49419.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49419.page GMT
[img]http://i25.tinypic.com/903clu.jpg[/img]

[/quote]
OMG, that is ME right now. Just made fresh popcorn. [/quote]LOL]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49421.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49421.page GMT
If Maxis won't make the game, then they @#$%ing well [i]SHOULD.[/i] There's enough geekery on the internet to make that game.

In fact, if anybody wants a fair-to-middlin 3D artist on an open-source project, I will [i]HAPPILY[/i] take on the job.[/quote]

I'm good at websites, management, organization, sketching (not amazing, but I can get the ideas across) and probably just plain ideas. I have many, many, many. My brain is soaked in ideas for everything, from cars to nuclear power to most recently Spore. Evolution, genetic modification, cellular microbiology, and biology in general have been my best fields of interest since junior high school many moons ago.

What I could envision from OpenSporce would be something that starts with you as any of six different types of simple bacteria, gaining points for advancements like cytoplasm and mitochondria, or if you want to go into the plant editor - sturdy cell walls and chlorophyll. Or if you want a plant-animal hybrid, both! Think of the possibilities of making something that got energy from eating - and from sunbathing in creature stage, based on what you did in cellular.

That's a tiny grain of sand in the ever expanding idea realm of my white-hole brain. But I still can't do math.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49509.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49509.page GMT You know I'd wish building colonies for different purposes was an option. Instead of a bunch of Mining colonies you were allowed to make resort colonies. I'd picture Resort world would either directly make spore bucks and/or positively influence any nearby empire into befriending you. Then laying colony floor plans would make sense.[/quote]

Oh, [i]great.[/i] You just gave Maxis an idea for another expansion.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49542.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49542.page GMT
What a feast for an omnivore! A COMBO! Want some fries with that? ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49604.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49604.page GMT
*looks right, then left*

Any volunteers to work on a Spore mod? Something like a Total Conversion mod?

I've got a forum I'm not using... *whistle innocently*

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49617.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49617.page GMT Any volunteers to work on a Spore mod? Something like a Total Conversion mod?

I've got a forum I'm not using... *whistle innocently*
[/quote]

I'll make with the artwork; s'what I do.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49623.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49623.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49635.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49635.page GMT Any volunteers to work on a Spore mod? Something like a Total Conversion mod?

I've got a forum I'm not using... *whistle innocently*
[/quote]

I'll make with the artwork; s'what I do.[/quote]

If I weren't so busy trying to put the final touches on another game, I'd help!

Later,
~J

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49678.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49678.page GMT
Which is funny because the NAT mod for Sim City 4 makes it FAR better than it is (which is saying something because it is a good game).]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49683.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49683.page GMT

I'm in the credits as Michael "Flux" Chang. Go check it in the credits section of the options menu.
And here's my old website from college (2005) users.design.ucla.edu/~mflux along with resume and all of that jazz. Anyway, take it or leave it. Those are my thoughts.[/quote]

You just created this forum account Sept 22, 2008... Thats three days ago. [/quote]

[b]So what... irrevelevant. I am sure most Maxis developers do NOT have a forum account.[/b][/quote]

maxismarble
maxismars
maxismichael
maxismk
MaxisMoose
maxismorgan
maxispiraterenaud
maxispirateslam
maxispiratesusie
maxisrob
maxisryan
maxistammy
maxistheresa
maxistoby
maxistony
maxiszach
maxisandrew
MaxisBenEA
maxisbill
maxisbob
maxisbryce
maxisbuttercup
maxiscactus
maxiscasey
maxiscimino
maxiscyril
maxisdarren
maxiseditordan
maxisgamer
maxisglazed
maxisguillaume
maxisholly
maxishutch
maxisian
maxisjd
MaxisJenna
maxisjustin
maxiskane
maxiskip
maxisllama
maxislucky
MaxisLucy
maxipete
maxisalexlee
maxisalpha

Yeah we just have lots of people posing as maxis employees.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49689.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49689.page GMT maxismarble
maxismars
maxismichael
maxismk
MaxisMoose
maxismorgan
maxispiraterenaud
maxispirateslam
maxispiratesusie
maxisrob
maxisryan
maxistammy
maxistheresa
maxistoby
maxistony
maxiszach
maxisandrew
MaxisBenEA
maxisbill
maxisbob
maxisbryce
maxisbuttercup
maxiscactus
maxiscasey
maxiscimino
maxiscyril
maxisdarren
maxiseditordan
maxisgamer
maxisglazed
maxisguillaume
maxisholly
maxishutch
maxisian
maxisjd
MaxisJenna
maxisjustin
maxiskane
maxiskip
maxisllama
maxislucky
MaxisLucy
maxipete
maxisalexlee
maxisalpha

Yeah we just have lots of people posing as maxis employees.
[/quote]

Actually, those are all me; I had to sign up for a [i]buttload[/i] of Hotmail accounts to verify all those account names! ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49694.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49694.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49720.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49720.page GMT
YES Spore isnt the game to end all games.
YES it has deviated from the original concept for whatever reasons may be....i put my money on the money

But when are they going to give it a rest??
Are you people so narrow minded that you don't understand that the original concept is gone?
The only way to get it back is if u hack the engine, brake it up and build the original game yourself.

What are you trying to accomplish by repeating the same negative SPORE again and again and again?
Ruin the experience for the rest of us?
Make us feel like idiots for actually looking forward to an expansion?

I find this post to be highly suspicious and even if this is true - so what
What good is it to build a game that costs u an arm and a leg for it to sell to a minorety customer group?
Yes i loved the original concept so did others here. But thats now slowly beginning to get old and frankly you are ruining it for a lot of us.

True Rocketgirl is right when she says that there is obviously a market for it...but its a minorety market.
What game compagny is going to spend the millions they spend on Spore for then to get maybe 10% of the costs back in revenue.

Instead of this constant bashing. Help us you code monkeys. Code the damned game, mod the crap out of it.
We will thank you for several reasons.

Yes I know that there will be tons of people saying they cant believe what a gullible idiot I am or something like that. Truthfully I stopped caring. You negativists appear to not care about us either.

At first i wanted to make a post about this but then I thougt, why clutter the forum even more with such rubish?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49739.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49739.page GMT
*snort* That was a joke... Sarcasm... You know? ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49741.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49741.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49744.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49744.page GMT
YES Spore isnt the game to end all games.
YES it has deviated from the original concept for whatever reasons may be....i put my money on the money

But when are they going to give it a rest??
Are you people so narrow minded that you don't understand that the original concept is gone?
The only way to get it back is if u hack the engine, brake it up and build the original game yourself.

What are you trying to accomplish by repeating the same negative SPORE again and again and again?
Ruin the experience for the rest of us?
Make us feel like idiots for actually looking forward to an expansion?

I find this post to be highly suspicious and even if this is true - so what
What good is it to build a game that costs u an arm and a leg for it to sell to a minorety customer group?
Yes i loved the original concept so did others here. But thats now slowly beginning to get old and frankly you are ruining it for a lot of us.

True Rocketgirl is right when she says that there is obviously a market for it...but its a minorety market.
What game compagny is going to spend the millions they spend on Spore for then to get maybe 10% of the costs back in revenue.

Instead of this constant bashing. Help us you code monkeys. Code the damned game, mod the crap out of it.
We will thank you for several reasons.

Yes I know that there will be tons of people saying they cant believe what a gullible idiot I am or something like that. Truthfully I stopped caring. You negativists appear to not care about us either.

At first i wanted to make a post about this but then I thougt, why clutter the forum even more with such rubish?[/quote]yay parvati

i couldnt have said it better myself

give it a rest people.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49747.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49747.page GMT
Yah. Didn't think so. You don't like it, fine. That's your right. On my side, [i]I'm[/i] tired of the fanboys/fangirls...

Note to self: Why do I bother?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49757.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49757.page GMT
Yah. Didn't think so. You don't like it, fine. That's your right. On my side, [i]I'm[/i] tired of the fanboys/fangirls...

Note to self: Why do I bother?[/quote]well every single thread on thsi forum is on that topic. If he were to stop reading them, he wouldnt be able to read any of the threads at all.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49764.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49764.page GMT I assure you i am not.
People that actually read the majority of my posts are aware that i'm devided between utter joy and sad feelings that are close to Rockets girl sentiments on Spore.

If you would know me better by reading my posts you would see that I actually support Rocketgirl.
Only because she doesnt talk out of her ass.

Sir, i call you a troll. Non constructive and pretty offensive poster.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49765.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49765.page GMT
Yeah...as said already, I was [i]joking.[/i]

...only [i]half[/i] of those are me.

[quote]YES Spore isnt the game to end all games.
YES it has deviated from the original concept for whatever reasons may be....i put my money on the money

But when are they going to give it a rest?? [/quote]

When we get what we want.

Next question.

[quote]What are you trying to accomplish by repeating the same negative SPORE again and again and again? [/quote]

I thought that was obvious: To get Maxis to A) respond, and B) by saying they'll make Science Spore, the original concept that so captured us in the beginning.
I didn't think this was brain surgery; we're not whinging just to hear ourselves talk...or at least, [i]I'm[/i] not.

[quote]What good is it to build a game that costs u an arm and a leg for it to sell to a minorety customer group?

True Rocketgirl is right when she says that there is obviously a market for it...but its a minorety market.
[/quote]

Minority? Seriously?
Let me direct you to this thread: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/30/5293.page

It's currently 14 to 1 in favor of making Spore according to the original vision. Fourteen to freaking [i]one.[/i]
Your "minority market" theorum is not borne out by the facts.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49772.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49772.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49774.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49774.page GMT I assure you i am not.
People that actually read the majority of my posts are aware that i'm devided between utter joy and sad feelings that are close to Rockets girl sentiments on Spore.

If you would know me better by reading my posts you would see that I actually support Rocketgirl.
Only because she doesnt talk out of her ass.

Sir, i call you a troll. Non constructive and pretty offensive poster.[/quote]

As I said, you have the right to think whatever you want. As for being rude... well, you haven't heard rudeness from me. If you construed my comment as rudeness, there's nothing I can do except to say it wasn't meant that way.

As for being non-constructive, there was no intention of any constructiveness in my reply. I was merely stating the same fact you were, only in the opposite way, and also in a more direct way, I guess. But that's just me.

Note that, if you too, would know me by my normal postings, you would find me a pretty agreeable chap, but as many other people said in numerous threads, "whining about whiners"...

I'll leave it at that.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49785.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49785.page GMT
You can't really ignore it, either.

If nothing else, that thread makes the "minority market" opinion quite suspect, even if it doesn't demolish the idea entirely.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49787.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49787.page GMT
Then again I have no idea where the info is coming from so... I don't know.

Also, while I want that old version, I also think it worrisome that people WANT games in which they don't have to THINK and just look at pretty pictures. But maybe that is what they used the $50 for, a box of somewhat slightly pretty pictures.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49792.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49792.page GMT
Yah. Didn't think so. You don't like it, fine. That's your right. On my side, [i]I'm[/i] tired of the fanboys/fangirls...

Note to self: Why do I bother?[/quote]

I just use statistics for my points.

I can't say I'm not still playing it, because I love space. I spent most of my time taking shots like these .

--- SPOILER ALERT! ----

[url=http://files.islesofscion.net/moon1.jpg][img]http://files.islesofscion.net/moonthumb1.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://files.islesofscion.net/moon2.jpg][img]http://files.islesofscion.net/moonthumb2.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://files.islesofscion.net/moon3.jpg][img]http://files.islesofscion.net/moonthumb3.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://files.islesofscion.net/moon4.jpg][img]http://files.islesofscion.net/moonthumb4.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://files.islesofscion.net/moon5.jpg][img]http://files.islesofscion.net/moonthumb5.jpg[/img][/url]
[img]http://files.islesofscion.net/steve.jpg[/img]

--- END SPOILER ALERT! ----]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49806.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49806.page GMT
EDIT: just saw the post above, yhea, pictures really are the best part of spore]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49808.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49808.page GMT I assure you i am not.
People that actually read the majority of my posts are aware that i'm devided between utter joy and sad feelings that are close to Rockets girl sentiments on Spore.

If you would know me better by reading my posts you would see that I actually support Rocketgirl.
Only because she doesnt talk out of her ass.

Sir, i call you a troll. Non constructive and pretty offensive poster.[/quote]

As I said, you have the right to think whatever you want. As for being rude... well, you haven't heard rudeness from me. If you construed my comment as rudeness, there's nothing I can do except to say it wasn't meant that way.

As for being non-constructive, there was no intention of any constructiveness in my reply. I was merely stating the same fact you were, only in the opposite way, and also in a more direct way, I guess. But that's just me.

Note that, if you too, would know me by my normal postings, you would find me a pretty agreeable chap, but as many other people said in numerous threads, "whining about whiners"...

I'll leave it at that.[/quote]

Then I apoligise, i admit the thing we often say, whining about whiners......
It just gets to a lot of us that we are being called idiots for liking the game on a daily basis.
Thats what set me of.
Peace? Your reply does seem like you seem to be OK. U had the coolness to stay calm and civilised.
I admire that in anyone on a forum.
I just got ticked of for a moment, because seriously the bulk of these posts is making it hard for others to enjoy the game...go easy on the word fanboy, fanboy implies a person who can not see any flaw in his or her pet peeve,

So lets shake hands, shall we?

And yes criticism is good again, ive shared my points enough.
But the same thing is beign said over and over again.
Thats hardly constructive. And why improve the game for people that dont like it?
As a marketing qeustion that is.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49815.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49815.page GMT
EDIT: just saw the post above, yhea, pictures really are the best part of spore[/quote]

I'm going to start screenies in uncompressed bmp from now on so I can get higher quality shots .

It's a shame what compressed jpg's do to quality.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49824.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49824.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49834.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49834.page GMT
Most of my creatures had a story. Their long neck was for eating tree fruit or they had lost of defense because they had terrible strike and bites. Some had extreme bites but were really slow some were fast to get away from predators etc. I based choices on what niche a creature might fullfill

I thought once I got the game I would be able to see which ones were successful and which ones werent. I thought I would actually get to evolve a creature rather than just do silly missions or "sing" to a neighboring nest.

I would have never bought the game if I knew it was just going to be a bunch of cartoonish creatures that just sat around on the planet.

I was still fooled the first hour in the cell phase when I had to adapt to the environment. Once I got on land it quickly became evident that parts didnt mean anything. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49841.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49841.page GMT I assure you i am not.
People that actually read the majority of my posts are aware that i'm devided between utter joy and sad feelings that are close to Rockets girl sentiments on Spore.

If you would know me better by reading my posts you would see that I actually support Rocketgirl.
Only because she doesnt talk out of her ass.

Sir, i call you a troll. Non constructive and pretty offensive poster.[/quote]

As I said, you have the right to think whatever you want. As for being rude... well, you haven't heard rudeness from me. If you construed my comment as rudeness, there's nothing I can do except to say it wasn't meant that way.

As for being non-constructive, there was no intention of any constructiveness in my reply. I was merely stating the same fact you were, only in the opposite way, and also in a more direct way, I guess. But that's just me.

Note that, if you too, would know me by my normal postings, you would find me a pretty agreeable chap, but as many other people said in numerous threads, "whining about whiners"...

I'll leave it at that.[/quote]

Then I apoligise, i admit the thing we often say, whining about whiners......
It just gets to a lot of us that we are being called idiots for liking the game on a daily basis.
Thats what set me of.
Peace? Your reply does seem like you seem to be OK. U had the coolness to stay calm and civilised.
I admire that in anyone on a forum.
I just got ticked of for a moment, because seriously the bulk of these posts is making it hard for others to enjoy the game...go easy on the word fanboy, fanboy implies a person who can not see any flaw in his or her pet peeve,

So lets shake hands, shall we? [/quote]

I have no grudge against anyone, except repeat offenders... Someone had a taste of that not that long ago. For some reason, I haven't seen him post since. But I digress...

Let me assure you everything is fine with me. As for the fanboy comment, it wasn't directed at you but rather to the pressing throng of posters affirming Spore is the ultimate game... I do not hate Spore, on the contrary. I can even live with what it's offering except for, yes, everyone knows... It's lack of depth. I want/need/crave stories, (I'm a writer) and having an empty galaxy is hard on my nerves...

Anyway. Peace. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49845.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49845.page GMT
Most of my creatures had a story. Their long neck was for eating tree fruit or they had lost of defense because they had terrible strike and bites. Some had extreme bites but were really slow some were fast to get away from predators etc. I based choices on what niche a creature might fullfill

I thought once I got the game I would be able to see which ones were successful and which ones werent. I thought I would actually get to evolve a creature rather than just do silly missions or "sing" to a neighboring nest.

I would have never bought the game if I knew it was just going to be a bunch of cartoonish creatures that just sat around on the planet.

I was still fooled the first hour in the cell phase when I had to adapt to the environment. Once I got on land it quickly became evident that parts didnt mean anything. [/quote]



i agree compleatly.

i would have much rather 'failed at evolution' then failed at running from the epic darwin.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49859.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49859.page GMT
ALL of us have already agreed that the game lacks depth.
Doesnt mean they have to pound the people who like the game on a daily basis. But yea, peace out man ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49866.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49866.page GMT And to those doubters, of course the 2005 demo was NOT pre-rendered. Because as he's giving the demo he is actually clicking and conducting actions.. pre-rendered would mean he's sitting back watching a movie and explaining.
[/quote]
SO TRUE... It was a 100$, six years project by almost a hundred people... And then a producer comes along, filled with... well, just watch it yourselves...
http://vimeo.com/boltpeters
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49878.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49878.page GMT
They still wont release some of the source code for SimCity so people cant fix some problems with the original game or add additional functionality. Even though some great things have been done people cant do basic things like improve the GUI or make housing work when plopped. They could probably make more money of of it if they did rather than wasting on developing Societies.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49887.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49887.page GMT
This was actually how I expected it to play instead of what it is.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49912.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49912.page GMT
They still wont release some of the source code for SimCity so people cant fix some problems with the original game or add additional functionality. Even though some great things have been done people cant do basic things like improve the GUI or make housing work when plopped. They could probably make more money of of it if they did rather than wasting on developing Societies.[/quote]

Well unfortuantely most companies don't see the obvious revenue boost that open source gives you.

Then again its not like google has become one of the largest companies in the world off that idea.

...wait a minute...
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49921.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/49921.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50018.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50018.page GMT And to those doubters, of course the 2005 demo was NOT pre-rendered. Because as he's giving the demo he is actually clicking and conducting actions.. pre-rendered would mean he's sitting back watching a movie and explaining.
[/quote]
SO TRUE... It was a 100$, six years project by almost a hundred people... And then a producer comes along, filled with... well, just watch it yourselves...
http://vimeo.com/boltpeters
[/quote]

I think its hilarious how the main guy in the first vid about the focus group is talking about EA being the quality leaders in the industry and he's wearing a Konami shirt.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50043.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50043.page GMT
I'd also like to comment that I would have paid double what I did for the above mentioned product maxis!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50094.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50094.page GMT
It really disappoints me that they could have made THAT game but didn't, and chose something so watered down that it will backfire on them sales wise when the first expansion gets released and no one buys it.

Now I will go whimper in the corner thinking about what this game could have been.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50958.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50958.page GMT
I'd also like to comment that I would have paid double what I did for the above mentioned product maxis![/quote]

The sickest part of all is that they dumped all this in the name of free creativity, then limited which parts were best, ensuring an even stricter and yet less elegant set of designs emerge from users playing through the creature stage.

I want my height to mean I can run faster, reach farther, but not sneak as well... the tradeoffs are what make tweaking worthwhile. With the current system, there is no tradeoff. You get the best, or however much you can afford, and the rest of the construction doesn't matter a whit. They went from impossibly creative and varied to loot-based. It is, in the end, very much like Diablo. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50987.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/50987.page GMT
I agree with you totally... When I saw the GDC 05' footage I was quite awe struck. The possibilities seemed limitless and quite realistic. As time moved on it seemed like more and more of the game was shaved off or dumbed down to the game that we have today. Don't get me wrong I love playing spore but I think that the developers really went in the wrong direction with some of the aspects of the game. I would like to see them add a feature that would enable some of these early features to be realized in game. Say have easy mode for the game we have today and normal for a middle ground. Hard would be more like what we saw back in 2005.
Also wanted to add that the creatures could be listed for these modes so they dont interfere with eachother]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51135.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51135.page GMT [/quote]
SO TRUE... It was a 100$, six years project by almost a hundred people... And then a producer comes along, filled with... well, just watch it yourselves...
http://vimeo.com/boltpeters
[/quote]

Well the science of fun seems to be broken and should be flushed immediately if they came to the conclusion that this "game" is long lasting fun.
I can no longer get my 7yr old to play this "game" anymore, it's limited joy has faded even for him..........what a waste of time this :game" was.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51143.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51143.page GMT Well the science of fun seems to be broken and should be flushed immediately if they came to the conclusion that this "game" is long lasting fun.
I can no longer get my 7yr old to play this "game" anymore, it's limited joy has faded even for him..........what a waste of time this :game" was.[/quote]

I think the fact that people keep bringing up their children and 'non gamers' playing should be the clearest sign something went terribly wrong. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51210.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51210.page GMT
I think it's brilliant they dropped the stats portion of the game. If I want my 3 legged pink little bunny to kick an epic fanged giraffe dragon's arse, by golly in Spore, I can make that happen. If I want pigs to fly, I can make that happen too. Forget jumping over it, I can make a cow walk on the moon. The makers of Spore eliminated all the constraints and limitations that performance stats cause.

Ever watch a younger child play... I mean, back in the days before computer games stunted their mental development? I have, and I've seen paper plates become UFO's, flying plastic green army men, action figures that somehow drove matchbox cars, and light sabers that looked remarkably like pencils cut though the steel door (?) leading to my bathroom, which was no doubt an enemy base or something. Spore is like that in a way. It's very different than what most gamers are used to. There's not anything to work towards. There's nothing to accumulate more of than the next guy. There's no reason... to do anything really. I guess maybe the beauty of it's simplicity is lost in the eyes of many, perhaps even, in those of it's creators.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51821.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51821.page GMT
For whoever responded to my post, I truely do believe that he was an intern at maxis. My point was that even if he wasnt, his ideas were still great. Really the main thing that keeps me coming back to spore is the [b]potential[/b]. The original concept was pure gold, and it was dropped. It is a travesty. I would pay full retail price for the old prototype that was described in the first post. I want Science Spore! ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51874.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51874.page GMT
I think it's brilliant they dropped the stats portion of the game. If I want my 3 legged pink little bunny to kick an epic fanged giraffe dragon's arse, by golly in Spore, I can make that happen. If I want pigs to fly, I can make that happen too. Forget jumping over it, I can make a cow walk on the moon. The makers of Spore eliminated all the constraints and limitations that performance stats cause.

Ever watch a younger child play... I mean, back in the days before computer games stunted their mental development? I have, and I've seen paper plates become UFO's, flying plastic green army men, action figures that somehow drove matchbox cars, and light sabers that looked remarkably like pencils cut though the steel door (?) leading to my bathroom, which was no doubt an enemy base or something. Spore is like that in a way. It's very different than what most gamers are used to. There's not anything to work towards. There's nothing to accumulate more of than the next guy. There's no reason... to do anything really. I guess maybe the beauty of it's simplicity is lost in the eyes of many, perhaps even, in those of it's creators.[/quote]

Am I the only one that creates stories when they play complex games? When did there become a rule that unless a game was a dull as bricks in what you can do it wasn't acceptable as a medium for imagination.

I 'still' play with little figures, I'm 22 years old and by golly I have DnD miniatures that get lots of work in their daily lives. Technology hasn't turned kids retarded.

People blame technology for the same things that people in history blamed books for. It was for a while believed that literacy was not only the devil but it was also causing those who read to become drones without imaginations or real lives.

Hell Wright himself even brought that up in one of his own interviews (I knew about it before that but I was pleased to see someone else bring it up).

The only thing stunting kids imaginations these days, besides mercury and lead, is their environment. You choose wether or not to give your children an enriching environment, technology did nothing to make many of the stereotypical whinos you speak of.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51881.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51881.page GMT
I think it's brilliant they dropped the stats portion of the game. If I want my 3 legged pink little bunny to kick an epic fanged giraffe dragon's arse, by golly in Spore, I can make that happen. If I want pigs to fly, I can make that happen too. Forget jumping over it, I can make a cow walk on the moon. The makers of Spore eliminated all the constraints and limitations that performance stats cause.

Ever watch a younger child play... I mean, back in the days before computer games stunted their mental development? I have, and I've seen paper plates become UFO's, flying plastic green army men, action figures that somehow drove matchbox cars, and light sabers that looked remarkably like pencils cut though the steel door (?) leading to my bathroom, which was no doubt an enemy base or something. Spore is like that in a way. It's very different than what most gamers are used to. There's not anything to work towards. There's nothing to accumulate more of than the next guy. There's no reason... to do anything really. I guess maybe the beauty of it's simplicity is lost in the eyes of many, perhaps even, in those of it's creators.[/quote]

So, suppose Maxis had made emergent gameplay through how you build your creature as opposed to the system in place now. Gamers would be happy with the more complex and fun gameplay and casual gamers would be happy, too. Why would they be happy? Because there would be nothing to stop them from creating any creature they wanted to, with or without stat stacking/emergent gameplay.

The main argument seems to be that stat stacking would stop players from being able to "create their own stories" or stop them from creating anything they wanted to. But that does not make any sense! Players would still be able to create [i]anything[/i] they imagined. The end of the creature stage allows players to completely redesign their creature anyway and all of the stages save for the creature stage (and a limited part of tribal) don't even use the stats from the creature stage rendering the "players want to be able to create their own stories" argument mute.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51900.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51900.page GMT

Speaking as one [url=http://pistudios.com]game company[/url] ex-intern to another, I like your analysis of the game. I think I would have preferred the "morphology matters" version, and I don't find planetary raids a nuisance, since I can ignore them with little consequence, but overall you made some good points.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51915.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/51915.page GMT
I really, [i]REALLY[/i] hate the badge system. I much prefer the allocate-resources-to-building-and-research model of the Master of Orion series. Badges and achievements mean that advancement is tied to the player's actions and not to the player's ability to build and manage an empire.
Realistically, I should be able to build an empire, and then sit back and do [i]NOTHING[/i]...yet still advance because the empire is still chugging along. This would free me up to actually [i]DO[/i] things while my empire tended to itself, instead of being forced to meet minimum requirements of [i]adventuring[/i] in order to acquire [i]technology.[/i] (Schadenwawa? That doesn't even make [i]sense![/i]) [/quote]

Actually, I love the badge system (I would prefere having more interesting quests to earn the badges, but I have no problems with the badges per se)

I would really hate it when Space Stage was another MoO or GalCiv. I love this two games, but I wanted something more like Starflight or Protostar (if anyone even remembers these) for the Space game. With the current system, I have at least in a small way something remotely similar.....


[quote]
Of [i]COURSE[/i] there'd be complaints...but at least they wouldn't be, "We were lied to/misled!" and "Why was this game dumbed down?" or even "Whatinhell happened to the original vision, here?" I mean, what game doesn't get complaints? I can certainly complain about my favorite games...but those complaints usually aren't deal-breakers. Spore's were; I uninstalled yesterday, and I feel better for having done so.[/quote]

On the other hand, knowing how game fora (forums?) work in general, you would be reading the same complaints.

[b]"We were lied to/misled! [/b]We were told we could create anything we want, and now I have to go for realistic creaturs that would actually work in real life"

[b]"Why did they make it so complicated?[/b] They said it was for everyone, and now you have to be a computer nerd with a degree in biology just to make a creature that can survive to tribal"

[b]"Whatinhell happened to the original vision, here? [/b] I thought it was about creativity... and now it is all about sience and evolution"

Yes, rocketgirl, YOU wouldn't complain about a game like that. It would be the game you (and to a certain extend I) wanted. But you would get the same complaints from those "on the other side of the stream". For them, the "hardcore evolution game" would be as much a deal breaker as the "plushy creation game" is for you.

Before the game was released, EA had no way to know, which side would be more important, sales-wise.... and I'm not sure that they made the wrong decision from a business point of view. We have to remember EA is in it for the money.



[quote][quote]
The question it would seem that the developers posed is simple: is this a game about creativity, or evolution?
[/quote]

Why must that be an either/or question?[/quote]

If physics and evolutionary fitness matters, I cant create what I want and play with THAT, since I would have to follow the rules of the artificial ingame physics... I couldn't have a pack of rabid toilet-seats or killerbunnys...
Limited creativity.

If you can create everything you want, no matter what it looks like, and it works, then of course the "realistic" evolution won't happen.

[quote]Even if the player's creature didn't evolve, per se, at least the rest of the world could.[/quote]

I'd love that. Altough I am not entirely sure this is possible. I mean: creatures evolving on its own, and still look good. Could be too much for todays hardware... and could involve an amount of programming that would have delayed the game another three years.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52025.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52025.page GMT
Have you tried...?

-ParticleMan: From it I got to think the chat on NASA was implemented... A realistic galaxy with dynamic gravity, in which space-objects would behave and evolve based on simulated-physics... With star-systems spawning, new stars being born from nebulae... A living universe... Remember all that talk? I've seen it there. It was possible.

-Biome: Seen it? Did't got the hang of it, but apparently, I was led to believe, something of a complex balance was to be achieved in some parts of the game. It was there to show potential of how intrincate could be to balance an organism or ecosystem... maybe machinery, too. As Will demoed in one of his videos. The one with Brian Eno. What about the music editors, sharing... even customization? When do I get to hear my own composed music? Even I´m not into that, I was led to believe I might learn something about that... I tried. Fake.

-City Maze: Used to make me believe my cities would be somehow custom, that i's inhabitants would interact with buildings... What do we got? Flocks.

-Cell Culture: NOW, HERE'S a BIG one, Whith it... they amazed me! The game was to include population and evolution simulators that could make it possible to calculate variations on the planets while we were elsewhere, I was thrilled. It was possible. What do we have? Insta-filled flocks of non interacting plants and creatures. As it is, there is nothing to creatures, they are just plants that move.

-Space: Never worked on my machine... So didn't went on trying thinking maybe was much of a spoiler for that amazing space-stage I was expecting. Will check it out. I won't be amazed if it actually has in it more awesome interaction with alien planets than we have today.

-Spug: Can somebody make a mod of it so we can paste un-animated png of things and call this creature-stage. Please?

I could go on: Crowd, Gaslight, NetCity, Waterboy, GonzaloGL, Tidepool...

When I go to the Community section, that's what they are still showing me, as to any person thinking on buying this game, that and a link to this forum. So hopefully if they do some research might find more light on the subject.

Also, as probably all of you, I signed for a NewsLetter to keep me informed. Those prototypes were linked to me from it. Based on that information, I pre-ordered a product.

They cannot get back my trust. But I'm beginning to want MY money back. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52203.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52203.page GMT
It sure made a bunch out of the people on this forum.


[quote]
[quote]stevenmc wrote: ...I think it's brilliant they dropped the stats portion of the game. If I want my 3 legged pink little bunny to kick an epic fanged giraffe dragon's arse, by golly in Spore, I can make that happen. If I want pigs to fly, I can make that happen too. Forget jumping over it, I can make a cow walk on the moon.... [/quote]


[quote=renlar]But you cant actually do all of that. Theres very little in the game that actually allows the player to create their own stories...[/quote][/quote]


Which of those things can't be done in Spore? Some people don't expect the game to provide the basis for their "stories". In some cases, the characters or story lines already exists, and people are bringing their content into Spore.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52247.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52247.page GMT
Which of those things can't be done in Spore? Some people don't expect the game to provide the basis for their "stories". In some cases, the characters or story lines already exists, and people are bringing their content into Spore.

[/quote]

Bingo, it only asks [i]us[/i] what tools [i]they[/i] need to provide for us to re enact them.
Lots of room for expansion. The good side of the current version is that it hasnt limited the games future towards 1 specific group. Spore is to good a game to be selfish about.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52261.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52261.page GMT
I think it's brilliant they dropped the stats portion of the game. If I want my 3 legged pink little bunny to kick an epic fanged giraffe dragon's arse, by golly in Spore, I can make that happen. If I want pigs to fly, I can make that happen too. Forget jumping over it, I can make a cow walk on the moon. The makers of Spore eliminated all the constraints and limitations that performance stats cause.
[/quote]
I'm not seeing it. I can't kill the epic fanged giraffe horse without tier 5 spit at least, and then I have to hide it. And find it first. There are still very stringent performance stats, and even stricter controls on [b]what[/b] I can put on my creature. I can have at most three jellybuttons and keep my legs. Being a quadruped is a disadvantage, so there's another limit right there. I have to get the best mouth, or I won't stand a chance against that epic thing. Creativity is even more severely limited than it would have been with morphology or trade-offs.

[quote=stevenmc]
Ever watch a younger child play... I mean, back in the days before computer games stunted their mental development? I have, and I've seen paper plates become UFO's, flying plastic green army men, action figures that somehow drove matchbox cars, and light sabers that looked remarkably like pencils cut though the steel door (?) leading to my bathroom, which was no doubt an enemy base or something. Spore is like that in a way. It's very different than what most gamers are used to. There's not anything to work towards. There's nothing to accumulate more of than the next guy. There's no reason... to do anything really. I guess maybe the beauty of it's simplicity is lost in the eyes of many, perhaps even, in those of it's creators.[/quote]

Have you not played creature stage? All it is, is precisely what you decry. A grind towards better loot. You have to have the tier four mouth on your uber-bunny, or you won't be able to put a dent in your enemies. Don't bother being anything but a biped with two arms and the best mouth and little decoration. No wonder EA/Maxis were surprised by users of only the Creature Creator. Creativity had effectively already been stifled by game expectations. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52315.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52315.page GMT
.
.
.

If your omni/herbivore is tall - it can reach fruit on larger fruit trees in the creature stage that short creatures can not (they just reach and make a frustrated noise and look sad).

That's pretty much the only thing in the game I've found that depends on how your creature is built physically.

Rather a pity in my opinion, that creatures are so homogenous despite the looks. There could have been so much diversity and fun to be had in an emergent system.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52319.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52319.page GMT Have you not played creature stage? All it is, is precisely what you decry. A grind towards better loot. You have to have the tier four mouth on your uber-bunny, or you won't be able to put a dent in your enemies. Don't bother being anything but a biped with two arms and the best mouth and little decoration. No wonder EA/Maxis were surprised by users of only the Creature Creator. Creativity had effectively already been stifled by game expectations. [/quote]

huh... ? I went from cell to space once without killing a single thing. I was on all fours all the way through. And grinding towards what loot? It's never been an issue. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52322.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52322.page GMT
huh... ? I went from cell to space once without killing a single thing. I was on all fours all the way through. And grinding towards what loot? It's never been an issue. [/quote]

Huh huh...? The whole Creature game is a paradigmatic grind. You perform the same simplistic action over and over again in order to obtain more and more of some resource or other. (In this case, the resource is parts, and the simplistic action performed over and over is either killing or socializing.)

sP]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52452.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52452.page GMT Not according to Spore's lead designer:

[quote=Alex Hutchinson]That demo in ’05 was really a high concept pitch – [b]the demo wasn’t an actual playable game yet, it was just a terrific visual presentation of what people hoped the game would eventually become[/b]. After that there was years of hard graft to get it back to that point and keep evolving it.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/09/22/spores-lead-designer-on-spores-design/[/quote]
Now maybe it's the case that you know better than the lead designer, but I doubt it. The above article also does a good job addressing the rest of your criticisms and explaining the behind-the-scenes decision making process.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52463.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52463.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52579.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52579.page GMT
Nobody was disputing that the demo was very incomplete. That's obvious.

The point is that it wasn't "pre-rendered." Just watch the '05 video again yourself. A good deal of the basic mechanics were there, however incomplete they might have been. The creature was being [i]controlled[/i], and in a way similar to (but more interesting than) what we have now. It quite obviously wasn't just a "visual presentation" in the sense of a scripted movie or cutscene.

Hutchinson doesn't do "a good job addressing" the criticisms here. He just lays bare some of the unfortunate thinking that led up to the wrong choices in the game's development. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52580.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52580.page GMT
Nobody was disputing that the demo was very incomplete. That's obvious.

The point is that it wasn't "pre-rendered." Just watch the '05 video again yourself. A good deal of the basic mechanics were there, however incomplete they might have been. The creature was being [i]controlled[/i], and in a way similar to (but more interesting than) what we have now. It quite obviously wasn't just a "visual presentation" in the sense of a scripted movie or cutscene.[/quote]
I've never used the "pre-rendered" argument myself, but the opening poster declaring that the game in 05 "already had most of the mechanics that we see today" doesn't at all jive with Hutchinson's claim that it was "a high concept pitch" and that "the demo wasn’t an actual playable game yet, it was just a terrific visual presentation of what people hoped the game would eventually become". Perhaps I'm just unfairly biased, but I think a lead designer has more credibility than a short-timer intern.

[quote=spongb6f1]Hutchinson doesn't do "a good job addressing" the criticisms here. He just lays bare some of the unfortunate thinking that led up to the wrong choices in the game's development. [/quote]
What you really mean is that you disagree with his reasoning which is fine but irrelevant when I simply noted that he addresses many of the criticisms cited in the opening post.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52670.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52670.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52676.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52676.page GMT "Good job" in the sense that he clearly explains the thought process behind the various decisions.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52699.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52699.page GMT
But yes, the article is informative. I think his reasoning is flawed though.

To take just one point that stands out--he says he "fervently believes" that the first four phases must be completed in the span of an afternoon, in order to convey a sense of progression and of building a civilization.

It is by ideas such as this that all the trouble started...

The effect of so savagely stripping the whole game up to Space (and really, Space too) of so much substance is not to give a sense of progression, but to rob that progression of any meaning.

I don't feel like I'm building and progressing, because the steps along the way are so trivial, perfunctory, rigidly scripted, and mostly for show.

As a rough [u]analogy[/u], imagine an RPG where you level up from 1 to super-epic level 40 in an hour. There's no longer any point to the process, you're not working to achieve anything real along the way.

That is not any kind of epic scope or broad perspective. It actually trivializes the whole concept of Spore, of evolving from microbe to galactic god. It's like watching the preview of a movie, where the main plot points are revealed, but you don't get to experience or enjoy any of the content along the way.

For these and many other reasons, I have to say that the thinking behind some of the critical design decisions was just fundamentally bad and shortsighted.

Note: it [i]may[/i] have been consistent with the goal of providing an epic sense of progression to allow it to be [i]possible[/i] to complete the phases so briefly--[u]provided[/u] there was still plenty of optional content and substance to the phases to let you keep playing on a much deeper level if you chose. There is none of that in this game though. You should have been able to focus on playing the phases you like (continually starting new games just to get to that one brief part doesn't count). That was the point of the sandbox analogy. But the phases are trifling and you're rushed through them in a rigid fashion. To repeat my new Spore motto: This game is more like a forced march through a sandy desert.
If it wasn't feasible to let you drag out the earlier phases indefinitely, one of the real potentials of the Space phase was to provide an integrating framework that somehow incorporated the earlier phases, allowing you to go back into them in some way, within your Space phase empire. (As just one example, growing up new cellular and creature lifeforms, through the actual phases, as an optional part of the terraforming process). But again, that approach is not remotely explored here.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52855.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52855.page GMT
Sorry if some have misunderstood me. Is it too late to clarify that?

What I meant to say was, the -core features- were there, and even by that I mean "core" as in... very bare bones. The build was definitely a prototype itself, and not "playable". For instance, you were able to build a creature and run it around in the editor, but not actually run it on the planet. That came later, and apparently in time for E3.

Hutchinson is absolutely right (of-course), it was a very elaborate prototype, built as a pitch.

I also fear that some people may have misread when I wrote "implied ____ gameplay" as "____ gameplay existed". At an early stage we were throwing in all sorts of ideas. I'm sure everyone has a different vision of Spore is supposed to be, and all I've done is shared my thoughts. Definitely don't presume that any Maxis employees share what I personally thought Spore was about.


[quote]I'd love this. But Type I is a civilization that harvests 100% of a planet's energy. Harvesting a star's energy with a Dyson sphere is Type II. [/quote]

You're right! Thanks for the correction.
Type II should be so powerful they can smash moons into planets!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52870.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52870.page GMT I'm not seeing it. I can't kill the epic fanged giraffe horse without tier 5 spit at least, and then I have to hide it. And find it first. There are still very stringent performance stats, and even stricter controls on [b]what[/b] I can put on my creature. I can have at most three jellybuttons and keep my legs. Being a quadruped is a disadvantage, so there's another limit right there. I have to get the best mouth, or I won't stand a chance against that epic thing. Creativity is even more severely limited than it would have been with morphology or trade-offs. [/quote]

DavidKris:

When they changed the part system so that attributes didn't stack and therefore increased the costs of parts, they greatly reduced one's ability to get very creative in creature design. For example they changed the cost of one of the feather decorations from $50 to 250$ because that part now has charm 5.

So when I try to recreate a complex creation that I made in creature creator that cost 1500 DNA to create, I now find that it costs almost 4000 DNA in SPORE. (I determined this by editing the creature in spore and selling back all the parts).

I'm not sure I can earn that amount in game. When I evolve a creature through the creature phase, I'm ready for the next stage after earning about 1200 DNA. So I'd need to earn at least an additional 2500 DNA at the end of the stage (which means extinguishing/befriending about another 35 species.) I've not continued the game long enough to see even if that is possible.

Or I could skip tying to evolve the creature and just build it in the creator, but I have the same problem -- you have only given 2000 DNA to create the creature.\

The only solution I've found is to use cheats to add DNA.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52953.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52953.page GMT I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I do understand where you're coming from, but needless to say I do disagree with your sentiments. For may part, I always expected Spore to play more or less like an elaborate version of The Sims, and it does for the most part. Sticking new parts on your creature, for example, is analogous to sticking new items in your Sims' house in the fact that it's a creative exercise that bestows certain advantages on your creation. I suppose if I thought about it I could come up with other such similarities, but the point is, while I understand your criticisms I do not share them simply because the kind of game you describe is not the kind of game I was expecting Spore to be.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52989.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52989.page GMT
What I meant to say was, the -core features- were there, and even by that I mean "core" as in... very bare bones. The build was definitely a prototype itself, and not "playable". For instance, you were able to build a creature and run it around in the editor, but not actually run it on the planet. That came later, and apparently in time for E3.

Hutchinson is absolutely right (of-course), it was a very elaborate prototype, built as a pitch.

I also fear that some people may have misread when I wrote "implied ____ gameplay" as "____ gameplay existed". At an early stage we were throwing in all sorts of ideas. I'm sure everyone has a different vision of Spore is supposed to be, and all I've done is shared my thoughts. Definitely don't presume that any Maxis employees share what I personally thought Spore was about. [/quote]
Thank you for the clarification.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52993.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/52993.page GMT
Things tend to advance if the selection favors advancement (like evolution). If we keep settling for non-intellectual, low quality wares then that is what will be developed.

I have an example of this about 6 years ago. I went to Korea one of the years and was thinking it doesn't compare to the US except for the cell phone (and maybe some other technologies). They had movie phones (phones that played entire movies) and video phones at a time when all we had were camera-phones (and for CHEAPER than American phones!). Why? Probably many reasons (I can think of many besides just this one), but one I'd like to think because so many of the American population were amazed at just camera phones and didn't really demand anything better. So keep demanding we want lower qualities games and maybe we will see what happens down the line. I don't know the future. And spore WILL make money because apparently so many people enjoy it, but I don't know if that is a good thing. And it is just one game, so who knows.

I played with legos and Knex's most of my childhood years (made cities with them and pretended they had economy and a military, which made me love simcity), but I see little creativity in spore. Nearly all of my creatures have Srurprise!'s at least for self defense (I play hard). Even if you go pure green, you will need 4 or higher stat socializing parts. No real choice between getting a big scythe that will weight you down, or a small pincer.

If you want better or more creative games at a lower prices, you can ask some of the "hardcore" gamers. I don't know what harecore gamers are but I don't think it is me because it seems to imply people that play games 5 hours a day.

Edit: And please don't try to say spore is a better version of TheSims; even if you could somehow compare the two I would say TheSims had way more complexity.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53064.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53064.page GMT I would really hate it when Space Stage was another MoO or GalCiv. I love this two games, but I wanted something more like Starflight or Protostar (if anyone even remembers these) for the Space game. With the current system, I have at least in a small way something remotely similar.....
[/quote]

Thank you! Starflight, I feel, is one of the holy grails of gaming. Granted, as the game was, it would never fly today (too many tedious repetitive tasks, not enough story), but the spirit of it hasn't been rivaled often. Star Control II was one of the few to capture the same sort of gameplay, having expanded on some of Starflight's finer points, and streamlining out the more tedious.

I agree, Spore gives me something slightly similar, for which I'm thankful. There is much I'd like to see added or improved, but as I'm sure there are many patches and expansions to come, I'm hopeful, and in the meantime, I've been having a blast with it. This isn't to invalidate the point being made by the OP or Rocketgirl, or others... I very much agree with them on many points. I'm just saying I'm having fun despite the changes made to the game through it's development cycle, and I'm hopeful for the additional content that's in the pipeline.

In a way, I have even more room to be disappointed than many others, depending on how you look at it, since I've long-since been a fan of the A-Life field (artificial life, sort of like artificial intelligence), which is devoted to digital recreations of life-like properties and processes. Many of the Spore prototypes were these sorts of programs. It includes cellular automata, flocking behavior, darwinistic selection and genetic algorithms, and a whole host of other similar concepts. I started toying with that sort of programming back in the early 90's, and while I've been away from it for a long time, Spore had me very excited about its possibilities. Even so, I knew realistically that it's geared towards entertainment first and foremost, and gameplay would win out over many of the more advanced concepts that were being proposed.

My hope is that expansions may add some optional content and game-play modes that bring back some of these features, but I won't hold my breath. Nevertheless, I look forward to the enhancements that will come along.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53177.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53177.page GMT To all those "not possible", "What made you think Spore would be like..."

Have you tried...?

-ParticleMan: From it I got to think the chat on NASA was implemented... A realistic galaxy with dynamic gravity, in which space-objects would behave and evolve based on simulated-physics... With star-systems spawning, new stars being born from nebulae... A living universe... Remember all that talk? I've seen it there. It was possible.

-Biome: Seen it? Did't got the hang of it, but apparently, I was led to believe, something of a complex balance was to be achieved in some parts of the game. It was there to show potential of how intrincate could be to balance an organism or ecosystem... maybe machinery, too. As Will demoed in one of his videos. The one with Brian Eno. What about the music editors, sharing... even customization? When do I get to hear my own composed music? Even I´m not into that, I was led to believe I might learn something about that... I tried. Fake.

-City Maze: Used to make me believe my cities would be somehow custom, that i's inhabitants would interact with buildings... What do we got? Flocks.

-Cell Culture: NOW, HERE'S a BIG one, Whith it... they amazed me! The game was to include population and evolution simulators that could make it possible to calculate variations on the planets while we were elsewhere, I was thrilled. It was possible. What do we have? Insta-filled flocks of non interacting plants and creatures. As it is, there is nothing to creatures, they are just plants that move.

-Space: Never worked on my machine... So didn't went on trying thinking maybe was much of a spoiler for that amazing space-stage I was expecting. Will check it out. I won't be amazed if it actually has in it more awesome interaction with alien planets than we have today.

-Spug: Can somebody make a mod of it so we can paste un-animated png of things and call this creature-stage. Please?

I could go on: Crowd, Gaslight, NetCity, Waterboy, GonzaloGL, Tidepool... [/quote]

Exactly. While I had seen some of the recent videos of Spore before the release and felt a twinge of dissapointment, these prototypes reignited my excitement of an amazing Spore. I especially liked the prototypes that demonstrated real astrophysical properties! WHY weren't these included in ANY of the gamplay design?!?

[quote=spongb6f1]

To take just one point that stands out--he says he "fervently believes" that the first four phases must be completed in the span of an afternoon, in order to convey a sense of progression and of building a civilization.

It is by ideas such as this that all the trouble started...

The effect of so savagely stripping the whole game up to Space (and really, Space too) of so much substance is not to give a sense of progression, but to rob that progression of any meaning.

I don't feel like I'm building and progressing, because the steps along the way are so trivial, perfunctory, rigidly scripted, and mostly for show.

As a rough analogy, imagine an RPG where you level up from 1 to super-epic level 40 in an hour. There's no longer any point to the process, you're not working to achieve anything real along the way.

That is not any kind of epic scope or broad perspective. It actually trivializes the whole concept of Spore, of evolving from microbe to galactic god. It's like watching the preview of a movie, where the main plot points are revealed, but you don't get to experience or enjoy any of the content along the way.

For these and many other reasons, I have to say that the thinking behind some of the critical design decisions was just fundamentally bad and shortsighted. [/quote]

I feel exactly the same way. It always seems like I'm being rushed onto the next stage before I want to. I would prefer to play a stage as long as I like! But no, it had to be made so that I play what I though would be 50% of the game in only a few hours. Almost no sense of acomplishment comes from this, no sense that I actually did something.

It's worse too because my creature I made is in no way what I wanted it to look like! In order to survive, I had to get the more expensive parts, spend more time getting DNA points by effectivly only two methods, and all the while being advanced toward the tribal stage whether I wanted to or not! What happened to the idea that you could store away DNA points toward brain capacity? That would have been great!

Oh well, sorry for the long quotes. It's just that you guys took the time to write that and I fully agree with your points. One more thing:

[quote=aznparker ]Edit: And please don't try to say spore is a better version of TheSims; even if you could somehow compare the two I would say TheSims had way more complexity. [/quote]

Precisely. I was hoping that Spore would actually be more complex and in depth than the Sims (or SimCity 4!). I continue to hope that Spore can be made that way.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53200.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53200.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53222.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53222.page GMT
I tried to make a turtle once and couldn't really attached more than 1 pair of legs because of the enormous cost and no advantage. It was... weird how it floated only being supported by two legs in the back. Although, you aren't really punished for dying so I don't know why I tried to survive as much as possible.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53249.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53249.page GMT
Games from a decade and a half ago cost the same $50-$60 and yet their production time averaged about a year. [b]How can you expect a decade long project, under a shitty economy, to be supported by the same price? [/b]That is just asking for to much. You are paying for the Maxis people to have eaten, SPORE in a toilet, and slept under a roof for the last decade of production. Yes, there are people at EA making way more proportionally but thats with any big business.

What they should've done is create the 2005 spore to its maximum potential, and then [b]they should've sold every portion of the game for $50.[/b] If you want to whole package, it'd be $250, but hey, you get what you pay for, and I'd be willing to drop every penny.

If they did that, we'd have an amazing version of the cell phase right now, and we'd probably be approaching the [b]2005 creature phase[/b] (which is all I want in life)]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53444.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53444.page GMT On the other hand, knowing how game fora (forums?) work in general, you would be reading the same complaints.

[b]"We were lied to/misled! [/b]We were told we could create anything we want, and now I have to go for realistic creaturs that would actually work in real life"[/quote]

You [i]CAN[/i] still create anything you want...that doesn't mean it's [i]viable[/i] in the local ecosystem, but you can't still make it.
And that's the [i]POINT OF THE GAME.[/i] Anybody watching the original vids for this game and hearing the hype would already [i]KNOW[/i] that Spore was supposed to be about teaching people concepts and principles in game form. Yes, your survival depends on design, but there's no one generic way to make a surviving design. That would have been the beauty of Spore.

[quote]
[b]"Why did they make it so complicated?[/b] They said it was for everyone, and now you have to be a computer nerd with a degree in biology just to make a creature that can survive to tribal"
[/quote]

No, you don't; you just have to be someone willing to engage in a little trial-and-error.

[quote]
[b]"Whatinhell happened to the original vision, here? [/b] I thought it was about creativity... and now it is all about sience and evolution"
[/quote]

And nobody watching the vids or reading about the game could possibly think that because it was explicitly stated multiple times that the game was about the underlying principles of life, the universe, and everything...with creativity [i]as well.[/i] It's not one or the other, or at least it [i]WASN'T[/i] when Will Wright described it.

Not [i]ONE[/i] of the complaints you raise would be valid for anyone who had done their homework about the game; conversely, the complaints about the game today [i]ARE[/i] valid because we were told one thing and delivered another.

[quote]
[quote][quote]
The question it would seem that the developers posed is simple: is this a game about creativity, or evolution?
[/quote]

Why must that be an either/or question?[/quote]

If physics and evolutionary fitness matters, I cant create what I want and play with THAT, since I would have to follow the rules of the artificial ingame physics... I couldn't have a pack of rabid toilet-seats or killerbunnys...
Limited creativity.[/quote]

[i]GOOD;[/i] I don't [i]WANT[/i] rabid toilet seats contaminating my game.

Nobody promised you [i]UNLIMITED[/i] creativity, nor did they promise that every design would be viable; that's outright [i]STATED[/i] in the 2005 demo when WW demos the creature "Tweety-bird" and states, "I suspect he would have a low fitness in the world."
What you're complaining about [i]WAS PART OF THE GAME CONCEPT FROM THE BEGINNING,[/i] and it is not a valid complaint.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53763.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/53763.page GMT
I am VERY happy with Spore! I've played for hours for almost every day since I got the game delivered at work.
I have been watching this games development since concept and especially since the famous 2005 Will Wright demo.
I purchased galactic edition, even though it was a bit overpriced, just to support the cause.
So, lets get that out of the way, I love Spore, great game, I'll be playing for awhile.
Thanks Maxis, Thanks Will!


That said, after the big long wait, I was a little disappointed with these same aspects that mflux (and others) have mentioned in this post.
I was not let down by the so-called "hype" I'm not usually swayed that way, I was "let down" by what Will Wright had said,...versus some of the simplified concepts we ended up with in the end.
I still hold out hope for patches, new options, and expansions however?

I agree though, from the very start when I heard only 1 ship in "my" own species fleet, its disappointing that thats all my "empire" can produce? Odd.

I also find it odd that I can't make any objects in space?
No satellites...communication or otherwise, No orbital defenses, No spacestations or outposts?
Only colonies on planets, and only one uber turret allowed per world on the planet level.
In a universe with that many pirates I should have options.

I was very proud of my armed forces at the end of civ stage, I even stayed in civ stage to gain more money and build all vehicles possible, I was very disappointed to find out the moment into space stage they no longer mattered.
I spent all that time building these vehicles and I can't take any invasion forces along to a hostile world?
I want to roll my tanks and aircraft out into an enemy world, I truly thought I would have been able to.
Instead, all my vehicles are reduced into simple spice gatherers and nothing more....I've thought about trashing the war-like vehicles in my empire for fast vehicles to see if they gain spice faster...but thats not what I wanted, not what I made a "Tank" to do *sigh*.
I was actually let down the same through every level, the only level that mattered that you found "all" parts was the cell stage (if you wanted all part options in creature editior later).
Once in creature stage I saved all my DNA to get me ahead in the next stage, but all my "extra credit" was wiped out once into the tribal stage, then once again all my extra food and time spent did not seem to matter once into the civ stage. I guess I should have known better by the end of civ stage, but I really thought the forces would be far more useful then they are.

Will Wright and many Maxis developers in many interviews I read and watched in the years leading up to this launch all suggested that "what you did in one stage, would affect what you do and what you can do in the next stage" but I would argue that aside from your "special abilities" granted by carnivore/herbivore or econimist/militaristic in the stages there is really very little if any other differences in what the "player" does into the next stage at all whatsoever. That disappointed me.

It's also odd to me that I can't fire at the space level even though as others point out your allied ships can.
Why can't I fire my weapons, or scan vessels in space or orbit?
Why is it that when I fly into enemy space they send ships to attack me from every system that I click on or come near to...but when the grox, or pirates, or other enemies come into my space they apparently can get right into my systems and get right to my worlds with no resistance at all? I get a measly warning when they start their attack?
You would think with an "empire" like mine I would have defenses (at least as good as the AI's) and you would think I would know they were coming before they got there (they know I'm coming and attack my ship long before I orbit my target world).

While in orbit, with an advanced ship it would be nice if I could some kind of orbital bombardment, or orbital mega-laser use? You would think they could fire through most atmospheres?

If the game never really ends it would be nice if things like my ships weapons and engine upgrades never really ended too, or at least went on longer. (I wanted a super-stardestroyer, or deathstar kind of uber-ship by the time I was a HUGE empire).

I would greatly enjoy a game mode of Spore that allowed physical parts and placement to actually matter, for creatures and vehicles.
I also noticed at the game launch the odd differences and changes in stats between the creature-maker creatures and the actual game creatures you could make.
Didn't the early versions of Spore also have creatures mating in game (doing a little bump together)?
I thought this was a cute feature, and teaches to some degree biological species function. This is not a game that portrayed mating in an inappropropriate way, if any game should show mating functions this is a game where it belongs! At least at the creature stages.

I wanted a bigger, badder, educated and thought out, harder game (but in the sense of depth and emersion not "levels"). I wanted what they had said it would be...a universe creator.

To finish, thanks again Maxis!
Truly, this is a great game! I already feel I got my money's worth....its just that Spore could have been (still could be) so much more then what it is!
I also feel that most of the changes people want would not require a new game, simply tweaks to an existing system...but what do I know.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54055.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54055.page GMT I also noticed at the game launch the odd differences and changes in stats between the creature-maker creatures and the actual game creatures you could make.[/quote]

I noticed that also, and wonder if the game ultimately to be released was very different from what they had planned when the creature creator was released only shortly before. It's odd to me that a game that long in the making would be so fluid in the part functions at the last minute.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54170.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54170.page GMT

Most relevent:

[quote]
Alex Hutchinson: (lots of snip....)
Also there’s a challenge with granularity - we originally had a formula for speed which was basically a curve that said that getting more legs made you faster until you had more than four legs, after which is it made you slower, but never made you as slow as someone with one leg, all of which was modified by the level and type of feet that you had and the mass of the entire creature. What we found however was that even people who thought they wanted that sort of calculation both didn’t understand it and didn’t like it when they were actually playing - the problem switched to ‘my guy looks like he should run real fast but he doesn’t, why?’ and we’d say, well, you put five legs on him and that bulbous tail is actually really heavy, and people were both disappointed by the result and didn’t understand it and they thought their creativity had been crushed.
[/quote][/quote]

I really like the thought about speed, but in playing with CC I began wondering why so few animals (at least reptiles and mammals) developed more than 4 legs. Insects and arthropods found other optimal designs. I expect that more than 4 legs would be faster than 4 legs - that there is no physical rule that says 4 legs are optimal. More rowers move a boat faster. Obviously other constraints include increased metabolism to support, greater mass involved, etc create the overall constraint of whether they're worth it, but I think there's probably a 6 leg design out there that's faster than a 4 leg design - if the DNA is flexible enough.


That insects could use a modular segmented body design - small mutations that generate an extra segment of legs is probably why they ended up with more than 2 or 4 legs (centipede is extreme example of this idea). Reptiles and mammals probably have a less adaptable body plan due to evolutionary path dependence. We couldn't grow an extra set of arms or legs even if it was useful and needed. Like Stephen Jay Gould's essay about a Panda's thumb - a thumb surely would be a better design option than the bony protusion it has, but the DNA isn't flexible enough to build a thumb. In Spore we don't have the constraint of path dependence, and it would've been fun to try out.

I actually built both 6 and 8 legged rams imagining that they'd have an incredibly powerful charge and "punch" on impact and wanted to see how they did in game. I had imagined them being faster than 4 legged animals. Would they need more food - have disadvantages - yes - but advantages too...

anyhow, I've rambled on, but these kinds of thoughts are interesting in a world where how the animal is built matters. Would've been fun to try it out in game.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54376.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54376.page GMT I also noticed at the game launch the odd differences and changes in stats between the creature-maker creatures and the actual game creatures you could make.[/quote]

I noticed that also, and wonder if the game ultimately to be released was very different from what they had planned when the creature creator was released only shortly before. It's odd to me that a game that long in the making would be so fluid in the part functions at the last minute.[/quote]

i had the same question right when i started with the game. i kept my creatures deliberately functional by keeping an eye on the stats while creating with the creature creator. but since there was no real gameplay and the content changes constantly now i don't know the full impact. i haven't seen my 18 legged creature made with the creator for example in one of my games yet ... maybe some downloaded eyeball with a stump foot would outrun it in this version. i'm not sure how i'd feel seeing just that ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54587.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54587.page GMT
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54589.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54589.page GMT
That insects could use a modular segmented body design - small mutations that generate an extra segment of legs is probably why they ended up with more than 2 or 4 legs (centipede is extreme example of this idea). [/quote]

Almost right, but turn it around - the repeating of a similar segment came first, with annelid-like ancestors (segmented worms) going to creatures similar to a "[url=http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/caribbean/wildlife-facts/2002/wildlife-facts-april-2002.shtml]velvet worm[/url]" and from there to exoskeletal types like early centipedes. Specialization of these segments gave most of the mouthparts, and reduction in limb number resulted in twelve or more (horseshoe crabs and isopods), ten (most crustaceans), eight (spiders and mites), or six legs (and almost four in mantises, which keep the upper two held close to the body). You can see part of this transition in centipedes, which use a pair of modified, shortened and sharpened limbs to "bite."

[quote=smili] Reptiles and mammals probably have a less adaptable body plan due to evolutionary path dependence. We couldn't grow an extra set of arms or legs even if it was useful and needed. Like Stephen Jay Gould's essay about a Panda's thumb - a thumb surely would be a better design option than the bony protusion it has, but the DNA isn't flexible enough to build a thumb. In Spore we don't have the constraint of path dependence, and it would've been fun to try out. [/quote]

True, but I feel like there are echoes in there somewhere: use a part, and it is more likely you'll find the next tier part first. At least, that's how it seems.

[quote=smili]I actually built both 6 and 8 legged rams imagining that they'd have an incredibly powerful charge and "punch" on impact and wanted to see how they did in game. I had imagined them being faster than 4 legged animals. Would they need more food - have disadvantages - yes - but advantages too...

anyhow, I've rambled on, but these kinds of thoughts are interesting in a world where how the animal is built matters. Would've been fun to try it out in game.

[/quote]

That's the thing: more limbs means more stability, usually. Limb length, stiffness and musculature can change how much force is delivered through limbs to aspects like speed. You hit upper limits like the muscle mass interferes with moving the limb, coordinating multiple limbs becomes a problem, ratio of body to limb mass and pumping that much blood and energy through them, a higher number of moving parts to break (which isn't so bad if legs are simple, inexpensive, and easy to re-grow: it's heck if you spend a lot of time and metabolism on a non-regenerating limb).

In short, more is not always better, which is why some of the most successful creatures are limbless (roundworms). It's really fascinating when you get into the idea of looking at creatures for these general rules, but it is definitely not easy to translate it into a game engine. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54612.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54612.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54736.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54736.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54750.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54750.page GMT
You touched a REALLY BIG point with omnipotency, I feel like- "Hell, I'm like the god of this galaxy, now why in hell would this rank one empire great me with 'Explain your presence!' or 'Leave are territory before we kill you.'" Seems a bit odd huh? And why can't, at this point in the game, can I just buy a SPORE 'anti ecodisaster' machine (that permanently stops them on the planet, or maybe even within a radius). It's a bit annoying having your lowly red spice planet asking- 'please come and shoot the animals we are too lazy to kill are selves'-]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54830.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/54830.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/55537.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/55537.page GMT
If any of the developers of Spore read these forums, then they would know that they'd be making a better game if they listened to him - and not just that, it has to be viable, after all - probably more money.

All of the problems there are true, and the suggestions logical, viable and good. It really does feel like the game - which is still fun - has been excessively dumbed down and its strategic and general complex content removed.

If anyone who can exert even a small amount of influence reads this thread, please take it seriously, you really could make the best video game to date, because those of us who are modders can only go so far, and by that I mean a tiny fraction of what you guys could make this thing. After some negative feedback after release, building on only what this guy has said, you could make something truly epic.

Thanks

Chris]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/55629.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/55629.page GMT The game has that potential still in it, right there with a bit of work.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/56656.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/56656.page GMT Props to you, good sir. You have made my day.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/57525.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/57525.page GMT Props to you, good sir. You have made my day.[/quote]

Hmm, could not those heads be full of light gases?
Large heads and small legs are not impractical in every permutation.

Spore on ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/57528.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/57528.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/57530.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/57530.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/59967.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/59967.page GMT
Very interesting indeed...
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/60037.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/60037.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/60080.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/60080.page GMT
[b]Space battles[/b] - Currently the player has no control over weapons in space, but your allied friends seem more than happy to open fire. Is Space a no-fire-zone for only your empire?

[/quote]

lol! i also thought that. its the same thing like the peter molyneux game "black and white". the game was about beeing god, but it felt like beeing "handicapped" (to formulate it kindly). its just right: spore isnt a bad game, its quite fun to play it, even if some things arent optimal. but its just not what (at least i supposed) it was ment to be ...

for me it was ment to be something new]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/60183.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/60183.page GMT [...]
I have a strong feeling that this is the main reason why people feel the game-play to be "shallow".
[...]
You're forced to consider whether or not you could afford that longer arm or that longer tail. You're forced to decide whether to put those spikes on the head so it hurts another creature as you're biting, versus hurting someone only from a tail-strike. Even with this setup I would imagine there's would still be a huge space for creature designs, making it a challenge to build creatures that both perform well and look awesome.
[...]
I'll give a few theories on why the above design was avoided. Perhaps there is fear that the Sporepedia would end up full of creatures that were insanely fast, or impossible to kill (ruining other people's experiences). There might be glitches found in the skeletal system allowing some creature exploits. Perhaps there was fear that eventually some "optimal" creature design would be found, and that every creature would end up being some variation of that "perfect creature".

However, I think that's why having a user-policed system (creature scoring) is useful. Players can simply subscribe to creatures that are tastefully designed and non-exploited. In addition, this type of "morphology-based" gameplay would perhaps transfer to tribal weapons, vehicles, and spaceship (which is 0% performance-desgn association). This way the game can be as challenging as what other people make. That is a true massively-single player game.
[...] .[/quote]

[Pardon the cuts, I'm gonna refer in the same order to these very useful Premises for my own Conclusions..]

That's it; that is the "instinct" we have, the main reason.

Ok, with longer or shorter costing more or less, and Parts costing more or less, there would be a definite Trade-Off:
The Measurement would have to adequately reflect a similar-effect Part's Power: tricky for non-Evolutionary and /or Ecologist and /or Animal-focused ("Creature" Stage, that is) Biologists.
We could then design Insects and even Plankton-eating Whales, possibly Plants and Fungi (both multi-Cellular too [Tripling the game in that last step, Doubling in that first step, on its own].

Orientation of parts in Creature stage is much like Tribal and up: whatever LOOKS GOOD To the Player /Creator.
If functional, then there could be tongues, sexual parts, each with spines or even - Spode FORBID - Graspers.

The rest is Fears, Glitches, an unbalanced "every creature" vs. "'perfect creature'" and the Balance of "ruining other people's" vs. "user-policed system".

[Still reading next Post(s)]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63241.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63241.page GMT Utterly pointless. Whether you were an intern or not is, in fact, irrelevant also.[/quote]

Well then, who are you?

Back to the Original Poster, the Actual Topic (and away from irrelevant "irrelevancy".. Seriously, make a point "man".)

[Another poster "fail at life"? then why not a Locked Post, only Preserved for Posterity In the Troll Museum?]

no idea what a(n) MMO is. I am sure a Google would get Mom anagrammed.

Defense, ahem, bites. You take little bites out of your opponent each time they attack you. However, yes, they attack pretty frequently, since the game has so many of them all, and because advancement could be extremely rapid otherwise.

We do not "Level Up" to the point that we never "have to kill Warthogs in the Forest for months" (South Park on WoW, in "Make Love, Not Warcraft"); that is for Fantasy games.

Colony (one word: ) Administrator.

One movie: Independence Day (Aliens kill Humans, Humans get incredibly lucky and even Win! )

What Fuel do Fleets run on? Just asking.

I totally agree; Planet vs. Planet: the ultimate fratricid (though probably not a good way to start: Cain and Abel is a good example).

So many good space-battling games; maybe those players were somehow to be left alone [my fave was either Spaceward Ho! for "easy" Strategy, or Starcraft, or another I forget the name of with Empire and Rebels, though not Star Wars].

Alien, you got it! Eat afterwards?? [Etc., trying to keep PG-13]

One word: ".. you can't approach this '[solar system]', it's too.." Enormous. And from Halo Demo: "They've locked the doors, and we don't have enough firepower to get through" (Cortana, single player level).

[Is my tongue (or fingers by keys) bitten off yet (by me?)..]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63273.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63273.page GMT
[quote=mflux][quote]Utterly pointless. Whether you were an intern or not is, in fact, irrelevant also. [/quote]
Doh... sorry you feel that way. I guess you're right, it's possibly irrelevant. I was directing that at the poster above me (pics or it didn't happen).

Didn't think I would get this sort of reactions within -3- minutes of posting. This is probably why Maxis developers are never allowed to post. [/quote]

I was parodying the one above mine. [/quote]

[he, jackuul, is referring to the post Two Posts above his] Just a Thread connection.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63297.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63297.page GMT
Orientation of parts in Creature stage is much like Tribal and up: whatever LOOKS GOOD To the Player /Creator.
If functional, then there could be tongues, sexual parts, each with spines or even - Spode FORBID - Graspers.

The rest is Fears, Glitches, an unbalanced "every creature" vs. "'perfect creature'" and the Balance of "ruining other people's" vs. "user-policed system".

[Still reading next Post(s)][/quote]

I'll answer the second paragraph first. Even in the current system, Maxis fills in the spot for intermediate creatures when no other can be found. For example, if it were completely made up of human players, every single creature would have attack ratings of 5 5 5 5 or social ratings of 5 5 5 5 (except for the intermediates). But even the intermediates would be the most efficient possible as the human players had to have "won" the creature stage somehow (an assumption, but I think most likely true). Besides, easy stages can just cut the stats in half if the "unbalanced perfect creature" is involved.

The first paragraph: just look at human society. Do you not agree much of our warfare (even today, and our society is much more advance than the "civ stage" society) depend on individuals and that additional arms, natural weapons, sensors, intelligence, would help? How many times have people depended on bayonets even when they have assault rifles? And that is nothing to say about when we used swords OR stone axes. It should matter, at least a little. If only only only for the sake of having the feel of your original creature (as it stands, your creature in civ and space is just a tiny avatar exactly the same as any other alien you have created except for the consequence abilities) making a difference.

But I admit that what you are saying is probably the reason of the current spore being the way it is.

Edit: I am really sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I hope I understood it correctly though!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63853.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63853.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63920.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63920.page GMT Utterly pointless. Whether you were an intern or not is, in fact, irrelevant also.[/quote]

Well then, who are you?

Back to the Original Poster, the Actual Topic (and away from irrelevant "irrelevancy".. Seriously, make a point "man".)

[/quote]

I much like yourself am someone with an opinion. I posted mine and kept it succinct and to the point. The points made are valid.
A CURRENT employee might have influence to affect the ongoing state of the game, a former intern has no more "pull" than you or I do.
For future reference a troll looks to provoke ire and response, I do neither.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63976.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63976.page GMT Utterly pointless. Whether you were an intern or not is, in fact, irrelevant also.[/quote]

Well then, who are you?

Back to the Original Poster, the Actual Topic (and away from irrelevant "irrelevancy".. Seriously, make a point "man".)

[/quote]

I much like yourself am someone with an opinion. I posted mine and kept it succinct and to the point. The points made are valid.
A CURRENT employee might have influence to affect the ongoing state of the game, a former intern has no more "pull" than you or I do.
For future reference a troll looks to provoke ire and response, I do neither.[/quote]

Intern or not, he had personal insight into the development process of Spore you could only dream of. So you are off-base.

And honestly, I give kudos to Maxis and EA for not deleting this entire post which certainly gives creedence and credibility to a lot of the gripes the older player base (which I may remind Maxis the average game player is now in their late 20's) and Maxis/Wright fans (or ex-fans at this point for some :/) have been saying.

Then again, Will Wright was quoted saying he'd rather sell more game copies than receive good ratings, positive opinions, or glowing criticism. He got what he wanted. :/

I am barely touching Spore which is sad for me, but I view threads like this on this Sporum as critical to the gaming industry, as I am a lifelong gamer since childhood and in my early 30's, and see game development and gaming future at a crossroads... and I feel like Spore really made the wrong turn at those crossroads. I hope that this is really not a trend that continues. Complexity DOES sell, look at many of the console games which aren't "Fisher Price My First Video Game".

PS: Hstalica, I love your sig!! LOL, honestly, get a few friends of mine together, a few beers, and a game of Chutes and Ladders would actually be more entertaining than Spore.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63981.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63981.page GMT
I don't think this point can be understated.

Creating a game for 8 year olds when you're target demographic is in their late 20's is a recipe for fail.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63994.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/63994.page GMT Why would they delete the post ? He says nothing offensive. He merely regurgitates how it looked to be and why it wasn't to be.
I am part of the older player base. I am infact beyond the age you stated by a comfortable margin, 43. I happen to believe the game was "shaved" also.

Stating the fact won't change it. Software is a business like any other. Revenue is down for the first time (PC market specifically). expansion packs are a fantastic way to leech more income. EA is the publisher.

You do the math.


]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64006.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64006.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64009.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64009.page GMT Why would they delete the post ? He says nothing offensive. He merely regurgitates how it looked to be and why it wasn't to be.
I am part of the older player base. I am infact beyond the age you stated by a comfortable margin, 43. I happen to believe the game was "shaved" also.

Stating the fact won't change it. Software is a business like any other. Revenue is down for the first time. expansion packs are a fantastic way to leech more income. EA is the publisher.

You do the math.


[/quote]

I'm in finance. I won't disagree with you about the business-sense of it. But it doesn't hurt, as gaming enthusiasts, to point out where this game went wrong, and it DID go very wrong!!! I don't think that can be said enough. We CAN make our point known, as much as we can, and hope we don't see more and more games get RUINED. Yes, Spore was RUINED. Everything it originally set out to be is not how it turned out. And, I bet, Will Wright would agree if he could and not get sued by EA.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64010.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64010.page GMT
Either or. My "gut feeling" all missing elements over a 4 to 6 expansion pack arc. With DRM and Securom being removed for BASE game on release of first one.

Addendum. Finance ? You have my sympathies. Fortunately I pulled my investments into safer havens a good while ago. I'm in commercial retail development myself..not good times.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64014.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64014.page GMT
Either or. My "gut feeling" all missing elements over a 4 to 6 expansion pack arc. With DRM and Securom being removed for BASE game on release of first one.[/quote]

And that, edcase512, is what is outrageous, and as a consumer, I have to voice my outrage at this marketing plan.

You usually get an expansion pack if you actually LIKE and ENJOY the original game long enough to get the expansion packs and it's a value to you. Not the other way around.

PS: Hehe, thanks, and I actually work in the New York Stock Exchange. It's cyclical. I'm actually looking for good buying opportunities over the next year or two. Oh, and I'm an average joe, as most are on Wall Street, actually... most "fat cats" lost it in '87 and never got it back.

LOL deleted bailout stuff, didnt want to be "controversial" but I was dismayed to see so many Americans showing financial ignorance by demanding NO to the bailout. They don't understand "Main Street" is just around the corner from "Wall Street"]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64019.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64019.page GMT
Either or. My "gut feeling" all missing elements over a 4 to 6 expansion pack arc. With DRM and Securom being removed for BASE game on release of first one.[/quote]

And that, edcase512, is what is outrageous, and as a consumer, I have to voice my outrage at this marketing plan.

You usually get an expansion pack if you actually LIKE and ENJOY the original game long enough to get the expansion packs and it's a value to you. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.[/quote]

No arguement from me.
But we are talking about the leisure softwares equivalent to a dairy farmer in EA. They will/have milk all franchises for all they are worth.

Yep, never thought I'd agree with Bush (a discussion for another time) but the bailout IS the right course.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64025.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64025.page GMT
You just cannot forbid liquidation of bad assets without prolonged consequences...]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64072.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64072.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64081.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64081.page GMT
These ideas got off-loaded to the responsibility of creature parts, which IMO is sort of disappointing. By the way, none of the above ideas s impossible. It was by sheer design choice that Maxis, for whatever reason, avoided altogether.[/quote]
REALLY? Placement of spikes in the original creature stage mattered? REALLY? How exciting!

[quote=mflux]
I'm not sure what can be done at this point to even do anything about it. That vision of Spore, the one I described above, exists now in some parallel universe which we can only dream about.[/quote]

You can always give the player the option. When entering the creature stage offer the choice. Then people can play both ways, or just the way they prefer. I expect that the current way will end up in the garbage after players experience the realistic stuff you describe.

MAXIS, Please give us the choice!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64777.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64777.page GMT mflux wrote: You're forced to decide whether to put those spikes on the head so it hurts another creature as you're biting, versus hurting someone only from a tail-strike.

These ideas got off-loaded to the responsibility of creature parts, which IMO is sort of disappointing. By the way, none of the above ideas s impossible. It was by sheer design choice that Maxis, for whatever reason, avoided altogether.


REALLY? Placement of spikes in the original creature stage mattered? REALLY? How exciting! [/quote]

Please refer to my clarification:
http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/135/5225.page#52870

[quote]I also fear that some people may have misread when I wrote "implied ____ gameplay" as "____ gameplay existed".[/quote]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64887.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/64887.page GMT
I read your opening post and I agree. Spore's first release date caught my attention for several reasons, namely because at the time I was studying Microbiology for the purpose of combining it with computer science... Elements of Spore seemed to nicely align with my interests. However, I too found Spore to be a series of chores in a world that is often discontinuous, as you pointed out, for example, a character can be shot in space but can not shoot back.

Sometimes the only way to implement a visionary idea is to make the project open source, where the game design can be driven by good ideas and innovation rather than a sales market strategy to harvest the lucrative children's market.

Also, there may be several factors for Spore's simplicity. Within the last four years hardware and Mboards have become significantly more powerful yet most older people probably own legacy hardware. I imagine the sales team will build up the game's complexity based upon customer feed back, fine tuning (the profits) as they say... Perhaps at some future time Spore will offer features that will please the older crowd.

Baker

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/65878.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/65878.page GMT
I say the Morphology would make the game that much better. I had a floating set of ribs for a species in space. I ask how can something without hands or feet make a spaceship little alone get past creature stage. I mean something like that would of died early on in Evolution.

As for the game it does some way go against Evolution and give the idea of God to allow those believing in creation to take part. However, I do beleive a true evolutionary game would be a lot more fun. I believe that evolution did accure with out a doubt for all species, but humanity in my beliefs was created from the dirt of where dead animals had laid to rest. I am a Christian-Jew, but I do believe that there to be evolution.

However, I do believe it would be more fun in a game to be straight evolutionary based then creation. The problem with creation is that in the end there would be one form of creature that would be thought to be the super creature. I think man would be it. We would be small enough that we can run a decent speed. We have decent size arms to grab things. We stand up right which helps with the ability to grab something up high. The only thing that could top man is an extension of man. A Mutant like in comic books would be the end result. If we meet other species from other worlds one day I do believe they will be much like us with a few differences in their appearence.

I thought this is the game I was buying. I was looking forward to the morphology as many others I knew. Now I feel like I got suckered. I do play the game time to time, but I can't wait for the next Total War series. They haven't ever let me down like Maxis and EA. I mean this game reminds me of Black and White 2 which left me feeling mad to the point I didn't buy the expansion and I didn't bother playing it after the next few days.

I still Play Oblivion, Rome Total War, SimCity (orginal), Medieval 2 Total War, and Civ4.

I agree with the fact that the galaxy is a great visual interputation to Spore. As a poster had said looks big top down, but when you look at it from the side it is thin with no depth.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/66171.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/66171.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/66581.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/66581.page GMT
Also, thanks PrimaDog for posting the article about the difficulties of balancing freedom of creativity with game play. That really helps to explain why the game is tuned as it is. Although I would have preferred a more realistic and deterministic simulation, where the editors heavily impact creation performance, I understand how complicated and confusing that could get for a lot of players. Still, I would love to see a future version of Spore where proper physics have a larger role.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/68939.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/68939.page GMT
As it stands now the problem still exists - I find myself having to devolve my creatures when I reach the tribe stage to what I [i]wanted[/i] them to look like.

A failing creature is determined solely and entirely by the environment and its competition. It wouldn't matter if my creature could barely lift its foot off the ground if all the predators and prey had similar difficulties. In fact, this is how I originally thought the game would work.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/72461.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/72461.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/74258.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/74258.page GMT
Or if a Tribe member wanders off to gather food by himself you could attack and eat him, gaining an achievement and a bunch of DNA points.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/74279.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/74279.page GMT
Anybody remember the little annoying animal that would always eat your food while your tribesmen were away? Perhaps in the creature stage, it would be your turn to be that annoying animal. It would make for an interesting bit... eating their unprotected children... munching away on their food reserves....

That'd be fun.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/76785.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/76785.page GMT
I agree about the creature flaws. The same affects vehicles. And it doesn't matter what your spaceship looks like, how many weapons you mount on it; it's still the same as a plain-jane saucer.

Exactly, why am I, the omnipotent or some other lower but still fantastic title, saving any colonies' butt when I'm on the other side of the galaxy? Blowing up a Grox planet or having a 1-star cocky enemy have his system captured with all colonies present is far more entertaining than eradicating a disease that the empire (probably not mine) can't take care of themselves or to stave off yet more pirates that the uber turrets easily handle.

Fleets: so my ship's the only one with weapons? At least my allies have starships for defense; my empire only trades spice (I'll get to that later)?! Nice to know that building an empire (more on that, too) chock full of battleships, jets, and tanks have been demoted to fancy spice-miners. Homeland security, hello! Maybe not as an impressive assortment of ships as Sins of a Solar Empire, but as the Omnipotent/hot shot/being who controls the purchase of systems and maker of colonies, I should be able to tell a flotilla to "go here and set up colony/save an ecosystem/capture or destroy a system/etc."
Spice: Why is there a trade route that only allows me to buy the system? And when an empire begs me to buy their system, shouldn't the price tag be lower than usual. Maybe the caps change from 10M, 5M, 3M, etc to 8, 4, and 2? It'd be nice for every trade route to give constant income. If spice is so important, shouldn't there be dedicated space (uncounted) in the cargo hold for the different type of spices? (Just don't let the giant sand worms get a hold on them )

Empire: Some other sovreign names perhaps? Republic, kingdom, state of, hive mind, etc

Wormholes and a Galactic Positioning System: So there I am, doing another "find the scepter/plate/llama" mission and boom! An ally screams bloody murder about some virus and despite having ships for planetary defense, they can't muster a single laser beam. So I command a ship from my immense, vast, faithful armada to...wait. I forget, I'm Buck Rogers/Mighty Mouse/Superman and alone I trek back to wherever. It's a good 8000+ pc away so a wormhole it has to be, but which one is closest to my destination?
Paths/areas are shown for missions, so why not a GPS? If a wormhole hasn't been explored, it can't tell me where it goes, but if it leads to 8pc from my destination (and IS post-explored) it should tell me to dive in. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/79901.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/79901.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/91079.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/91079.page GMT [quote=MaxisLucky]I'll vouch for Michael. He was an intern in the very early days of Spore development.

-caryl
[/quote]]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/91109.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/91109.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/91111.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/91111.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/92516.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/92516.page GMT
---

Alex needs to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

For those of you who don't have the patience to watch the whole thing...

First, the alpha female gives the lions whatfor ... then...
That waterbuffalo COMMANDED the other waterbuffalo to kick that lion's hieny!
Herbivores are a LOT more interesting than Alex gives credit for.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/93228.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/93228.page GMT
You have put a lot of things I have been thinking about Spore into a coherent piece of writing.

I would like to point out a few things.

-Spore was deliberately dumbed down for public consumption. It seems as if there was some false advertisement on the part of EA.

-Spore looked amazing at first glance, but most people will grow tired of the actual game play. Sure Maxis made some fun editors to make cells/creatures/airplanes etc. the actual GAMEPLAY experience seems to be thrown together and seemed very uninspired and repetitive.

-As a student of Biology and a reader of Dawkins, Gould and Diamond, evolutionary biology CAN be modeled mathematically.

HOWEVER, this process does not take years of corporate code crunching but rather a team of bright, creative people who understand the sciences involved in modeling life.

FIRST
-Why isn't mass/volume or bigness a MAJOR factor in food requirements etc.
-Why can you put wings on a creature and it automatically flies, A winged creature is the "optimal creature" so much maligned, Instead by not taking into account trade-offs aka the ENGINEERING of life.
-Why do you only lay eggs and why does every other creature lay eggs?
-Why no amphibians?
-Why no creature stage in the water?

The list goes on,

To me the cell/creature/tribe stage alone could have been the richest, most complex game every devised. BUT instead it was neutered and blanched by EA.


[b]Everything is dumbed down to a pretty game of "Paint-A-Silly-Creature" rather than a revolutionary combination of graphics and science.[/b]

The creature stage alone could be use to generate entire ecosystems with infinite complexity.

HOWEVER the most bothersome part of Spore, that irks me as a student of science is the fact that EVOLVE = Progress in a linear fashion. Evolution is NOT advancement from bad to good, from simple to complex. The most successful living organisms, microbes and insects are far from advanced compared to a mighty reasoning human.

The issue here is how WINNING is defined. Why couldn't a species of TINY creatures, who could because of their small size and fast reproduction take over the planet? The reason is because of the concept of trade-off I'm talking about. The reason there will be no optimal creature in my model is because the potential food to be had will be capitalized on by larger predators. However some kind of equilibrium will be reached. By randomizing climate changes, catastrophes etc, one could "play" the story of an entire ecosystem, responding to the environment.

Just my $0.02

P.S. Maxis/EA didn't listen to anyone who knows anything about biology.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117477.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117477.page GMT
Thanks for your feedback on your thread (and everyone else who has responded... tremendous amount of great discourse... sorry I simply don't have time to respond to every single post but I read all of them!).


[quote]-Spore was deliberately dumbed down for public consumption. It seems as if there was some false advertisement on the part of EA.
[/quote]

I have some thoughts about this further below. Keep this in mind.

[quote]-Spore looked amazing at first glance, but most people will grow tired of the actual game play. Sure Maxis made some fun editors to make cells/creatures/airplanes etc. the actual GAMEPLAY experience seems to be thrown together and seemed very uninspired and repetitive.[/quote]

That's a very interesting thought and I have some experience with that lately. I've been showing Spore to a lot of people at my place recently and, like Will in his demos, I was driving the game and showing off different sections of the game (cell, editor, creature, space). What I realized is how easy this game is to demonstrate to someone and provide a great first impression. That's the "breadth" that Will & team always talked about... how wide the spectrum of this game can be.

As soon as I sit someone down with this game for more than fifteen minutes though, the cracks in the gameplay starts to show. It's as if looking at the same magic performance too many times you start to see the tricks the magician uses, and you begin to call foul. That's just because the gameplay lacks depth, and we all know that now.


[quote]-As a student of Biology and a reader of Dawkins, Gould and Diamond, evolutionary biology CAN be modeled mathematically.

HOWEVER, this process does not take years of corporate code crunching but rather a team of bright, creative people who understand the sciences involved in modeling life.

FIRST
-Why isn't mass/volume or bigness a MAJOR factor in food requirements etc.
-Why can you put wings on a creature and it automatically flies, A winged creature is the "optimal creature" so much maligned, Instead by not taking into account trade-offs aka the ENGINEERING of life.
-Why do you only lay eggs and why does every other creature lay eggs?
-Why no amphibians?
-Why no creature stage in the water?

The list goes on,

To me the cell/creature/tribe stage alone could have been the richest, most complex game every devised. BUT instead it was neutered and blanched by EA.[/quote]

I'm also a student of Darwin, as well as an avid reader of Richard Dawkins and his kin. I studied in college about several related topics, for example Complexity theory, theories of emergence, and dabbled with artificial evolution.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that ideas taken from evolution can be made into a deep, fun, engaging game with high replay value. A lot of us (fans) thought that was what Spore might be, but it turned out to be untrue.


[quote]Everything is dumbed down to a pretty game of "Paint-A-Silly-Creature" rather than a revolutionary combination of graphics and science.

The creature stage alone could be use to generate entire ecosystems with infinite complexity.

HOWEVER the most bothersome part of Spore, that irks me as a student of science is the fact that EVOLVE = Progress in a linear fashion. Evolution is NOT advancement from bad to good, from simple to complex. The most successful living organisms, microbes and insects are far from advanced compared to a mighty reasoning human.

The issue here is how WINNING is defined. Why couldn't a species of TINY creatures, who could because of their small size and fast reproduction take over the planet? The reason is because of the concept of trade-off I'm talking about. The reason there will be no optimal creature in my model is because the potential food to be had will be capitalized on by larger predators. However some kind of equilibrium will be reached. By randomizing climate changes, catastrophes etc, one could "play" the story of an entire ecosystem, responding to the environment.[/quote]


I've spent a lot of time recently reading the Creator's Corner and Spore Showcase forums, and spent a lot of time commenting on and showcasing Spore editor designs. Despite all the flaws with Sporepedia, I now have to re-assess the strengths and weaknesses of Spore given this new perspective.

The greatest strength of Spore is, without-a-doubt, the editors. From these, the Spore community has become somewhat of a budding deviant-art collective. The people who spend the most time in the editors now are the people who have the most fun. Going through the Sporepedia and the forums to collect, subscribe, and comment on the awesome creations that people are putting out, then challenging yourself to make creative designs is a very rewarding experience.

To this end I think that Spore is somewhat schizophrenic in what its goals are. On one hand it has these awesome editors and a creative community, but is sold and billed as a game with that aspect but on the back-burner. Had these two been released as two separate products there would have been much less confusion.

This brings us back to your opening statement:
[quote]-Spore was deliberately dumbed down for public consumption. It seems as if there was some false advertisement on the part of EA.
[/quote]

I don't think that EA is some nefarious company out to destroy games. I think Maxis made decisions based on their best guesses at the time, which is that people would value creation over gameplay, and allowed the gameplay to become overshadowed by the editors. While this is innovative and different, many people disagree on their decision and demand that a game should be a [i]game[/i], and not just any game.. but a game from Maxis with the same quality of gameplay from The Sims or Sim City.

Admittedly, I'll wager that this delicate balance (game? or art toolkit?) is incredibly hard to strike. From what I gather, the creative types only create and never really use their creations in-game (for game-playing), and the gamers don't spend as much time in the creators as the creative types do (you're also limited by dna, parts, etc). In the end it's a bit upsetting that so many awesome creations are only there for show, existing in the Sporepedia and never getting used, all because the gameplay that support these creations are too boring to bother with.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117511.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117511.page GMT Agreed completely.

[quote=mflux][quote]-Spore looked amazing at first glance, but most people will grow tired of the actual game play. Sure Maxis made some fun editors to make cells/creatures/airplanes etc. the actual GAMEPLAY experience seems to be thrown together and seemed very uninspired and repetitive.[/quote]

That's a very interesting thought and I have some experience with that lately. I've been showing Spore to a lot of people at my place recently and, like Will in his demos, I was driving the game and showing off different sections of the game (cell, editor, creature, space). What I realized is how easy this game is to demonstrate to someone and provide a great first impression. That's the "breadth" that Will & team always talked about... how wide the spectrum of this game can be.

As soon as I sit someone down with this game for more than fifteen minutes though, the cracks in the gameplay starts to show. It's as if looking at the same magic performance too many times you start to see the tricks the magician uses, and you begin to call foul. That's just because the gameplay lacks depth, and we all know that now.[/quote]
And this has been exactly my experience as well, no matter whom I show it to. One person stopped playing and said, "This game is stupid," while she had all but fallen in love with her bizarre creation only minutes before. She is the casual gamer type, notice that she had a [i]worse[/i] reaction to the game than the hardcore gamers. Where EA/Maxis got the idea that casual gamers enjoy being bored and patronized I have no idea.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117551.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117551.page GMT
*Throws asparagus at the first post*

[img]http://images.neopets.com/items/foo_grill_asparagus.gif[/img]
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117626.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117626.page GMT
*Throws asparagus at the first post*

[img]http://images.neopets.com/items/foo_grill_asparagus.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I kinda like asparagus , they are tastey ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117627.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117627.page GMT
*Throws asparagus at the first post*

[img]http://images.neopets.com/items/foo_grill_asparagus.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I kinda like asparagus , they are tastey [/quote]

You bet they are. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117628.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/117628.page GMT
*Throws asparagus at the first post*

[img]http://images.neopets.com/items/foo_grill_asparagus.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I kinda like asparagus , they are tastey [/quote]

Makes your pee green =P]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/122634.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/122634.page GMT
*Throws asparagus at the first post*

[img]http://images.neopets.com/items/foo_grill_asparagus.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I kinda like asparagus , they are tastey [/quote]

Makes your pee green =P[/quote]
No it doesn't, it makes it smelly]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/122649.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/122649.page GMT Agreed completely.

[/quote]

Whereas that wager is probably mostly true, I'm a creator type who would have also loved to have seen those creations in gameplay...

I got too frustrated with all the shortcomings on how in-game Sporepedia works, and decided to pull my creations out altogether, as they seemed to have no point...

For all the hours spent, comments received on my creations without even advertising myself (intentionally), I still was not happy with how pointless/meaningless my carefully constructed creations felt to me...

It might be because I'm not the kind of person who enjoys seeking out praise? ... But am rather a person who takes pride in producing something that feels worthwhile to me...

Just my opinion...]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/122659.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/122659.page GMT
EA got SPORE to become the simplistic but user-friendly, creativity driven game where "every design" works and there's no possibility of failure. Also, they got some sort of introductory game aimed at a larger audience that may use it as a learning ground before moving on to more complex and intense simulation and RTS games.

Now they want to keep it like that, and I can understand (and support) this attitude.

However, I see no reason why EA cannot listen to the wishes and request of countless more experienced players and release a new installment of the game with a whole new (or old, if you take the 2005 demos into account) level of gameplay.

It could be called something like "SPORE Advanced: Evolution Hardcore". Then they could bring in the rough, the tough and everything else they dropped away from the 2005 SPORE that a lot of us thought would be the best game ever and were so disappointed to lose.

It would not be that much of an investment, since they've already created most of it, and it would be a way to keep both ends of the consumer chain satisfied. You want a simple, easy-to-play game that will allow you to unleash all your creativity without you having to worry whether it'll work or not? Go for SPORE. You want a challenging and scientific accurate (at least to a degree) game that will play as a constant battle for survival and force you to channel your creativity into a form that is both effective and cool looking, but with the risk that you may ultimately fail and be run over and destroyed by the game or other people's creations? Go for SPORE Advanced: Evolution Hardcore.

My two cents.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/128818.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/128818.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/128820.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/128820.page GMT
The reason for this probably so that you could determine which empire had the system in cluster view.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/128890.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/128890.page GMT Alex needs to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

For those of you who don't have the patience to watch the whole thing...

First, the alpha female gives the lions whatfor ... then...
That waterbuffalo COMMANDED the other waterbuffalo to kick that lion's hieny!
Herbivores are a LOT more interesting than Alex gives credit for.
[/quote]

I totally agree with that, and more: even the vegetation is a lot more active than we usually think. Many trees and other plants are quite aggressive in their chemical war against potential predators and the competition from other plants.

For those who are not prone to scientific publications and prefer fiction novels, take a look at Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World" (the books, NOT - for the love of Spode - the movies). The guy may have stretched it out a little, but he definitely did his homework prior to writing (also considering the information available at the time). There we see a lot of notions that could have gone into SPORE, mainly regarding to pack behavior and creature interaction (both within the same and between different species).]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/129021.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/129021.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/131590.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/131590.page GMT
(...)

I'll give a few theories on why the above design was avoided. Perhaps there is fear that the Sporepedia would end up full of creatures that were insanely fast, or impossible to kill (ruining other people's experiences). There might be glitches found in the skeletal system allowing some creature exploits. Perhaps there was fear that eventually some "optimal" creature design would be found, and that every creature would end up being some variation of that "perfect creature".

(...)
[/quote]

I know you don't agree (as you later stated) that what you said there was enough reason not to have morphology matter on SPORE, but let me make some considerations about the specific points I quoted.

About the Sporepedia getting filled with deadly and possibly exploited creatures, you already answered how the player could control content that gets into his game. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that some of those deadly designs would be quite a welcome addition to some players (particularly the challenge-driven ones).

About the finding of the "optimal creature design" (or even more than one, since the game would work with many variables of fitness), I believe you may be very right. It would happen, and a lot of players would want to use it (them).

Nonetheless, I don't think it would impact SPORE that much. Finding the "perfect" design would be [i]a[/i] challenge, but not [i]the[/i] challenge. Futhermore, said design would have a very likely chance of not pleasing a lot of people (even if only for the aestetic characteristics).

But the most important thing is: playing with the "perfect" creature would get boring fast, specially when you consider multiple playthroughs. And the real challenge, as I see it, would actually be to try and make a less-than-fitting creature that can survive against evolutionary odds and reach space.

If you think about it, that's what happened to us. The human being is far from being the perfect creature on Earth, yet we came to rule it. Compared to many of the creatures on this planet we are weak, slow, fragile, clumsy, cannot jump high nor swim properly, we don't possess any kind of effective natural weapon or mechanism of defense, but somehow we managed to make it through.

Wrap it up with the quest for creativity and there you have the kind of challenge I think would make the most of the SPORE engine and gameplay, had the game being designed and released as the 2005 demos suggested to us.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/132260.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/132260.page GMT
I'd buy it.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/132310.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/132310.page GMT
There is no "perfect" creature if the game responds to / incorporates optimal environments.

There's a reason deer live in the woods, beavers in the water, woolly mammoths in the snow, on mountains, in valleys, in rain forests, deserts, and other ecological niches/climates that get filled, .... Diversity exists in the real world because there are so many local optima. But the underlying game has to be complex enough to allow us to find and exploit the opportunities provided by a changing environment. Things like metabolism, optimal climates, predator/prey relationships, herd/solitary behavior, and other aspects need to come into play that allow more complexity to creep into the picture.

I don't think we really need an entire galaxy. I think a single planet could keep us occupied for a long time if done properly.

edit: for spelling and clarifying a point]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/132456.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/132456.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/145371.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/145371.page GMT
Exactly! Why make 6 billion planets if you can make one incredibly complex planet? I can picture it now: your creature cautiously strolling through a lush tropical rainforest, densely thicketed with a multitude of trees and other plants, and populated by hundreds upon hundreds of the creatures made by others. In the background, you see a vast, rolling range of earthen hills and mountains, while, nearby, a river flows, the water turning white as it beats down upon the rocks lying at the bottom of a waterfall. But, in the distance, you hear the cry of what sounds like a medium-sized, porcine organism, as it is torn apart by an unknown threat. Suddenly, all of the wildlife become silent, and amongst the flora, you see a pair of eyes gazing upon you hungrily. As it leaps from the bushes, your creature knows to move to the side, and it narrowly avoids death. A fight ensues; the attacking organism appears feline in body structure; it moves quickly. However, your creature is faster; it has evolved a pair of sturdy, yet lengthy legs; your creature has also evolved somewhat large forelimbs, giving it incredible strength. With a few clumsy, yet powerful, swings, the felinoid is beaten into submission; you'd eat it, but you are herbivorous. You stride into a clearing, away from the would-be predator, which has already been picked up by yet another, larger predator. It doesn't seem to care about your existence; it already has dinner. Perhaps this has been a somewhat long visualization, but I just keep thinking about what the game could have been, yet perhaps still could be. Creature morphology would certainly keep me interested for months to come, as well as more complex development of your civilization, in aspects such as agriculture, philosophy, and its culture in general.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/151078.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/151078.page GMT
Ah well, what else would I save up for... ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/177597.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/177597.page GMT
Eh, I think I just copied OmnimanticaRex... But they should instead of leaving me with my clay ball of a planet to work with. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/177603.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/177603.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/177619.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/177619.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/262674.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/262674.page GMT
Yes, it would be a good idea to have a more complex version separate, because one has to remember that the most important part of a game is being able to play it, and the game shouldn't be unplayable for the majority.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/262698.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/262698.page GMT Plus, I miss the creature stage part where each creature seemed to be on its own and had to scout for a mate. in the current creature phase... it's like mini tribal phase, and seeing all the creatures lumped together over a nest is very unrealistic. I want my creature to be able to wander far away from the nest (but still within range to find a mate) and bump into other creatures who aren't necessarily tied by a rope to thier nest. I miss where Will Wright made the creature drag its prey away from the beach, now how they eat is so unrealistic and awkward looking. I looked up spore about a year ago. Preordered it for February before it was moved to September. When I looked at it, my favorite video was the 35 minutes 05 demo. I expected to see that gameplay, or better. This is so limiting. I love it, but it's limiting.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/263977.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/263977.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/264491.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/264491.page GMT
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.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/270176.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/270176.page GMT
I'm sure that they still have the old prototype somewhere on a disk or something. Do you guys actually think that Maxis wouldn't have backups? They are probably forgotten somewhere because they finished the game. But still.

And remember. "OK, we start . . . Here."]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/289736.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/289736.page GMT
I'm sure that they still have the old prototype somewhere on a disk or something. Do you guys actually think that Maxis wouldn't have backups? They are probably forgotten somewhere because they finished the game. But still.

And remember. "OK, we start . . . Here."[/quote]

I would not expect them to. A prototype from years ago is not something they would resurrect. All they would do is to take new ideas and add them to the current code baseline. They *might* use some of the code from the demo, but only if it was something that solved a particular problem and was easy to transfer to the new code base.


]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/291600.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/291600.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/302383.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/302383.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/303837.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/303837.page GMT
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 ...

[color=blue][b]"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."[/b][/color]

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 ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/303905.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/303905.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/379212.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/379212.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/379493.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/379493.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/423524.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/423524.page GMT
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]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/423722.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/423722.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/426820.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/426820.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/455783.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/455783.page GMT 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..]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/592033.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/592033.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/630300.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/630300.page GMT
I want to go to that parallel world and play that Spore. Someone take me.

Anybody...]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/635116.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/635116.page GMT
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.[/quote]

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.


[b][i]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.[/b][/i]


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.

[b][i]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.[/b][/i]

There was CONSTANT talk of Spore as a [b][i]"franchise"[/b][/i] in interviews, as the [b][i]"beginning of a new brand"[/b][/i].


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 [b][i]a significant and vocal portion of the enthusiast gaming community[/b][/i] isn't likely to be a successful brand years down the road as [b][i]Sim City[/b][/i] or the [b][i]The Sims[/b][/i] became.


Spore is more or less dead in the water, and I [u][i]seriously doubt[/i][/u] 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 [b][i]more than skin deep gameplay and complexity[/b][/i].

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.

[b][i]Spore[/b][/i] wasn't that game.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/811831.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/811831.page GMT
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.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812687.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812687.page GMT 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..[/quote]
don't you mean toddler image?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812723.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812723.page GMT
But, have you all that where disapointed just had you expectations to high?

Anyway... I would also love to have more realism in the game.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812770.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812770.page GMT 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..[/quote]
don't you mean toddler image?[/quote]

Heh, think that is a large part of Spore's problem. They don't seem to know what demographic they're going for. As simple as the gameplay is, and as cartoonish as the style is, the underlying concept still aims for a much more mature audience, and I think that confused focus cripples the game's potential, not just in terms of how good it is, but in how popular it will ever be.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812814.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812814.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812963.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/812963.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813062.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813062.page GMT
And the space ship thing is so true (why to i gotta go around and do all this crap i mean im freaking omiponet)
and hte space fleet thing is somthing i want so bad i mean seriously i have 53 colonies i gotta baby sit.

i mean the game is good for a "1st time" and stuff but if 3 games were made that are simular to this spore would mroe than likly not be my #1 choice, i mean i would go with the one that makes my creatures act real,express emotions in a way it seems animalistic,and lets me free lance like hell.

but basicly what im saying is wha ti said in the 1st sentence "i agree!".
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813093.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813093.page GMT
The "sip test" I'm referring to is the classic Pepsi vs. Coke sip test Pepsi ran back around 1980. Pepsi wins a sip test - it is sweeter and tastes better when all you're taking is a sip. But having a super sweet drink isn't as desirable when you're drinking 16oz, and had the test been longer - to drink a full bottle, Coke would've won the test.

What I'm wondering is did the complicated play-testing of Spore (I've seen videos saying it was extensively playtested which was unbelievable to me) was akin to a sip test. Were they only getting feedback from people who were sipping the game? People who were only coming in for a day and playing it for the first time? Did the specific testing methodology potentially mislead them into over-valuing the feedback from gamers playing it for the first time, and de-valuing feedback from games who want to drink the whole thing and drill down deep?

I wonder this because something had to make Will drop many of the cool ideas, and I'm wondering if a flawed testing methodology led them down the wrong road?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813504.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813504.page GMT
I love the game, but screams faulty testing on every stage. The fact that you could not destroy the Grox and that inventory and tools cannot be resorted, or keys reconfigured, pretty much proves it. A game that takes six years in the making and that finally comes out without noone checking if it can be beaten? tssk... sip-test, clearly.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813833.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/813833.page GMT
You can destroy the Grox... it just takes a LOOONG time! ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/814538.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/814538.page GMT
Sorry, got something on my throat... (ahemmm, ahem* muddytextures... ahem*)]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/814588.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/814588.page GMT and then when I went to land, I ended up spending the LONGEST time trying to find a skeleton that would give me some parts I needed for my creature to be the way I wanted it to be. when my brain grew fully, it said that I could access the editor one last time before evolving to tribe, and I was thinking "the last time in the editor? that must mean you'll have every part!" so I just went on to tribal, and I was like "WHAT!? I STILL don't get all the parts I need! my creature will be incomplete for the rest of the game!" and then I went through the whole boring tribal stage which didn't last very long, and then I went to civ stage (the most boring experience of the whole game!) and I quickly decided to ally as many civilizations as I could to prevent a lotta wars, but when I allied everyone, I was stuck. I had no way of progressing without taking over other cities. I was military, so I went to conquer a city. I asked a nearby ally for help, and they were a little late and came as soon as I had already captured the city and then they converted it and said "haha! we have captured your city!". that was a strange experience. so then, I took the rest of the cities on my continent (4 in total) and as soon as I took the last one on my continent, all the other nations (who were my allies) each said "WE'VE WON! let us unite so we can be stronger!" and before I knew it, I was in control of the world. I then went to space stage, and it was fun at first, but it got boring.... quickly....

so even the first time around, the game was boring.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/815315.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/815315.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/820084.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/820084.page GMT

What I did read though I have these following comments on: I agree. Some creatures I've seen have rather pointless structures. I've seen creatures with short, stubby legs outrace my creations because they have better feet. Legs play absolutely no role in how fast they move save for how tall they are. But even then that's kind of pointless apart from reaching fruit that's higher up in trees. And having an access of legs just seems to glitch things up and look awkward (and rather funny).

I usually keep my designs realistic looking. So I don't have creatures whose bodies are going off at dramatic or odd angles. Wouldn't they fall over at such dramatic angles?


And yes, once you get to the space stag the missions get rather repetitive and pointless. When I was sent on my first errand boy mission I was told the items I needed to retrieve had some relation to the Grox. However in the end I was only thanked and given a tiny sum of money for my time. No information on the Grox was given to me so that I could feel some kind of purpose in my mission. It turns out most of what I know about them are from the scrolls I run across and from actually meeting with them face-to-face and talking to them about their philosophy. I at least expected a story of some form in the space stage. But due to repetitive game-play I normally stop as soon as I get there and begin planning my next endeavor and set my eye on an achievement.


But, instead of complaining like many people I would like to put forward ideas to fix this.

Fixing the creature creator to be more realistic is rather self evident. Stop making legs clip into each other and make them play an role apart from how tall they are. Pick up the pace the creature can move based on the length (or number, if that counts) of legs, and not solely feet.

Giving the missions in the space stage a kind of purpose will make them more exciting. Will the missions end war or start them? Will you get information regarding the Grox? A sense of fulfillment is needed in these missions and a larger variety or length of some could help. But alas I don't think the varying length bit would be doable because of length.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/820161.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/820161.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/872174.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/872174.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1120401.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1120401.page GMT

MY EYES!!!
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1120505.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1120505.page GMT
Well....I can't believe you have said this. This is EXACTLY what I first thought of the game (I especially liked the comparison of the ''Simcity firetruck'' to the ''spice saving pirate attack''). I [b] completely[/b] agree with you.
People here, I think, still don't believe how much of a disappointment this game was and the really $hity thing about it is WE WILL NEVER HAVE THE GAME WILL WRIGHT WANTED US TO HAVE!

And don't give me all that $hit about necroing because I'll SPORE the hell out of you.

SM Blackbird Edit: Removed enormous unnecessary quote.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1233104.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1233104.page GMT

now let it die folks

SM Blackbird Edit: Removed unnecessary quote.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1233110.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1233110.page GMT

now let it die folks

SM Blackbird Edit: Removed unnecessary quote.[/quote]

well I'm sorry I made some of the Sporum members cry if they read this. I have learned my lesson....[img]http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/2165.gif[/img](no wonder Spore is still popular. the kiddy casual players actually frown upon you if you [i]disagree[/i] with Spore ) sorry for being an individual and saying something barely looked like a ''threat''. oh yea, by the way, i was being [i]sacrcastic[/i], if you havent noticed ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1234158.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1234158.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1234174.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1234174.page GMT [/quote]

yea me too, with EA's background, I'm surprised they didn't remove this thread.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1234191.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1234191.page GMT
This thread is from September of last year. That makes this, in my eyes, a NECRO!

So can we not persist in this?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1235430.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1235430.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/40543.page . I would like you to add [i]your[/i] ideas. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1294550.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1294550.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/40543.page . I would like you to add [i]your[/i] ideas. [/quote]

I'm thinking this thread won't bring him back or get his attention, but it sure will get the attention of everybody in this section who loves to shriek "NECRO!"

It was kind of a silly reason to wake this old rag, and if you want to add his ideas to your thread in feedback, I'd say go for it, just credit him in case he cares.

As for the rest, every programmer in the world lacks family time on demand, sleep when they want it, and management and marketing who they can boss around.

The truth is, in 40 years around this programming for a living; marketing presses management, who mostly try to balance not killing their staff against what marketing pushes the CIO into supporting.

Programming is a tough job. And it's a job with a deadline, shrinkwrapped or otherwise. You learn ways to deal with it, or you find another job.....

Most art - for - money jobs are like that. Ask and architect or a logo designer.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1294587.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5225/1294587.page GMT