We know that maxis is capable of including actual science in their games:

[img]http://www.cazatrucos.com/imagenes/simcity3000.jpg[/img]
[img]http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sell/SSProfiles/40000112/Images/9/PC%20-%20Sim%20Life.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cdaccess.com/gifs/shared/front/large/simearth.jpg[/img]

Which is partly why so many were dissapointed with the drastic lack of science in Spore.

I, of course, voted a resounding YES!!!!

As anyone who has visited my thread could have guessed...

SPORE is actually Anti-Science!
[url]http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/589.page[/url]

I'm glad to see where this poll is heading.

One final thing I'd like to say:
It seems that discussions like this tend to be about the extremes. Or at least, if you oppose the premise, you take an extreme stance.

Nobody is saying Spore needs to be a detailed life sim from some Cray Supercomputer. Spore hardly included any valid scientific content, and in many cases did something completely opposite of the reality. It's anti-science. It's anti-educational. There are certainly games out there that are science-lite, but still fairly authentic in the science they use. There's a big difference!

I would compare it to a movie based on a book...

If a movie is made based on a book, obviously they can't include every line of dialog, and every scene. But if they keep all the premises of the book intact, and keep the dialogue true, that's good enough to satisfy most people who have read the book.

However, if they rewrite the story to make things happen that are totally against what happened in the book, then that's unacceptable!

We've all seen movies that go both ways. And if you are familiar with a book that's been made into a movie, you want to see the movie be true to the book, not a bunch of flim flam scriptwriter's imagination that uses the title of the book but nothing else.

Well... Spore is like the latter. And those of us who have voted YES here, want the former.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

theultimateend — GMT

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ZeroSk8J — GMT

Instead of altogether re-selling it as a different game.

I just think it should be made into an expansion. Making us not only use less money, but it's a quicker install and less hassle then installing another few GB when an expansion could be a few MB.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Virakotxa — GMT

So people don't need to buy Spore first to get a good game when expanded?

On the other hand, it would cost me more money, since I own the original game.

They would not give me a return to get that new game instead...

And if it's an expansion... I would have to pay for it too...

[color=white]Thanks to Spode, piracy is an option...[/color]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=theultimateend][quote=Jackuul][quote=RocketGirl]I'd give a left bodypart to hear the reaction to this thread at Maxis...[/quote]

Chris: Pffft, ignore it.

Will: But...

Chris: I said [i]ignore it![/i][/quote]

So true.

Hecker deserves a kick in the nuts.
[/quote]

Ooh, I see a new poll in the making!

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

RandomEmp: They're still complaining about it being too cute...

Chris: I don't care.

RandomEmp: They say you really made a mistake.

Chris: Wait until the expansions.

RandomEmp: They brought up your past talks, encouraging piracy...

Chris: I... Well... You see...

*Silence*

Chris: You're Fired.

RandomEmp:

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

AnotherPoster — GMT

Will: This is cool!

Hecker: Yuck!

Will: but it looks like a real petri disk.

Hecker: That's why I said 'Yuck", people want cute and I'm the "cute" team lead.

Will: I think sciencey stuff is cool.

Hecker: In my vast amount of game content history I can categorically claim that cute is more important than science. People want bland game play where everybody wins no matter what they do.

Will: but I like science......

Hecker: Go stand in the corner, you don't know anything about games. Did I mention that I'm on the board of GDC? Do you know how important that is?

Will:: but you never really shipped a game, right?

Hecker: I have written a lot of articles about it, more than YOU and EA wants a cute game that appeals to four year olds.

Will: but my four year old doesn't like what you describe.

Hecker:*sigh* ok, you are forcing me to tell you that EA wants to kill the game Spore but make as much money as possible when it comes out.

Will: What?

Hecker: Fire anyone with any brains

Will: Like who?

Hecker: Everyone except me. I will kill the animation system and make the game look cute and remove any reasonable gameplay, okay? Don't make me call EA execs.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

What are we at, now...slightly better than 12 to 1? And some pretty rockin' comedy to go with it?

C'mon, Maxis! Get with the program, here! The people have spoken, and we want Science Spore!
Now, if Will Wright was as for SP as it appears, and against CP, I'd like to offer my support for the revolution against the Cutists in favor of the Scientists. Who'z with me? Viva la revolution!

Chant it with me now: Wright was right! Scientists unite!
Wright was right! Scientists unite!
Wright was right! Scientists unite!
Wright was...!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

AnotherPoster — GMT

Ahhhhh!

[quote]

Wright said, “and the ironic thing is that, if anything, we’re teaching intelligent design. I’ve seen a few games that relied on evolution — I’ve even designed some of them — and it’s just not as fun.”

[/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08games.html?_r=1&pagewanted=4&oref=slogin

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=AnotherPoster]Ahhhhh!

[quote]

Wright said, “and the ironic thing is that, if anything, we’re teaching intelligent design. I’ve seen a few games that relied on evolution — I’ve even designed some of them — and it’s just not as fun.”

[/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08games.html?_r=1&pagewanted=4&oref=slogin
[/quote]

Well they also failed at making this intelligent design part fun
But who am I right, I didn't spend 5 years at Fun college.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

AnotherPoster — GMT

Will: Look at this cool evolution game I made!

Hecker: It's not fun.

Will: What?!

Hecker: It's all yucky science stuff. Eeeewwww.

Will: I thought it was fun.

Hecker: Its not nearly cute enough. Look, you go work on the editors and I'll work on a cute gameplay system based on intelligent design. Oh, by the way, for the animation system, I couldn't get your linked, rigid bodies, constrained based system to work. You know, the one that you showed in the GDC 2005 demo? I just used a particle IK based system instead, I hope you don't mind.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote]
Wright said, “and the ironic thing is that, if anything, we’re teaching intelligent design. I’ve seen a few games that relied on evolution — I’ve even designed some of them — and it’s just not as fun.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08games.html?_r=1&pagewanted=4&oref=slogin
[/quote]

Well, you know...I think it [i]would[/i] be fun.
I mean, okay, it'd be fun if you still got to design your creature still, but if the [i]rest[/i] of the galaxy were subject to natural selection, and if even [i]your[/i] creature were subject to a kind of natural selection in which you had to design your creature to cope with al the pressures of food gathering and predators and such, but [i]HOW[/i] you innovate to prosper in your environment is totally up to you.

I think a game like that would kick some serious SPORE. It's what 2005 Spore--Science Spore--seemed to be attempting to do; that's the game I wanted to play!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RedLightning777 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]This horse isn't dead until Maxis kills it...[/quote]

I dont think MAXIS is going to be the one to kill it!. EA certainly beat it up enough, its almost dead. But I have hope.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

The poll is pretty straightforward and everyday there are new microbe's joining and saying the exact same things.
Its clearly something that bothers a lot of people.

I think a lot of people bought the game, thinking that the negative people are some weird twist on fanboyism.
Then they realise that what we have been shouting all along is in fact true.
Untill I get a clear cut answer you can expect me to keep bugging you Maxis/EA.

You would expect nothing less from us.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Moach — GMT

erm.... BUMP!! they should see this

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

I find this whole topic to be interesting but quite funny, Yes a lot of people think they would like science spore as you name it but I prefer to enjoy playing not sit back and watch as a load of "scientific rules" dictate everything. So much depends on the balance.., I've played with scientific experiments where people created creatures and let them loose in an imaginary world. Once your creature was created all you had was something where you recieved reports about. X creature caught and ate Y. X creature mated with Y and Z was the result (oh Z died after being attacked and eaten 5 minutes after birth). It's already been explained that they had a system with speed in .1 increments. It meant that sometimes you had to chase after something for ages to battle them without really noticing that you wouldn't catch them. Is that fun ?

I've said it before but are people really saying cute and science are mutually exclusive ?

Spore gaming complexity can and should be improved. More science could be incorporated but pure science and gaming don't really work together well.

Let the flaming commence as I realise that most people who disagree don't actually participate in topics like this really making the poll pointless.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Thats not true, hehe, every poll is pointless.

But the number doesn't lie either, don't forget its just a slice of time and space. Nothing more.

Science and cute are not mutually exclusive.

Science Spore is also a bad way to name the game.
Science Spore has become the popular term to adress the missing behavioural code, form follows function, the micro/macro management. Its not so much about watching bacteria in a petri dish gameplay.

Its the shift from a 1st person, to a true 3rd person God experience. What we have now is a 1st person perspective on Spore. There is not a single moment where you feel you are your empire. Hard to explain, I admit.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Neruu — GMT

can't really trust this poll since probably a lot only voting for it cause there mad at spore.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=Neruu]can't really trust this poll since probably a lot only voting for it cause there mad at spore.[/quote]

Right. Because people that are mad at Spore clearly cannot be trusted.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=RedLightning777][quote=RocketGirl]This horse isn't dead until Maxis kills it...[/quote]

I dont think MAXIS is going to be the one to kill it!. EA certainly beat it up enough, its almost dead. But I have hope.
[/quote]

Oh, I don't even suspect that. Of either of them.

If anything is killing this thread, it's apathy.

[quote]I've said it before but are people really saying cute and science are mutually exclusive ?[/quote]

[i]Absolutely.[/i]

No, not [i]ME.[/i] The so-called "Cute Team" at Maxis said it; what Spore has become is the result.

But nobody here is saying that a Science Spore couldn't also be cute; hell, the 2005 version of Spore [i]WAS[/i] kinna cute in its own way.
But the point is more arguing that the science-centric Spore that Will Wright originally envisioned is something that [i]we want to play.[/i]

[quote]Science Spore is also a bad way to name the game. [/quote]

Can't be helped. "Spore 2005" is misleading, and the Spore team divided up into Cute and Science teams; evil...*cough* sorry, [i]cute[/i] won, and the result is this pile of pudu we have now. So drawing the line between Cute and Science is basically inevitable; treat it as a buzzword, an easy identifier.

[quote]Science Spore has become the popular term to adress the missing behavioural code, form follows function, the micro/macro management.[/quote]

But all of those things are [i]DIRECTLY[/i] related to the scientific principles no longer being present nor the focus of Spore. The Spore I'm advocating is the one in which players discover principles of the universe like ecology, cosmology, astrophysics, Drake's Equation, etc, etc, through gameplay and experimentation.

That's science, baby!

[quote]can't really trust this poll since probably a lot only voting for it cause there mad at spore. [/quote]

That makes the opposite of sense. What good would come from making a scientific version of Spore that would ease [i]ANGER?[/i] Unless, of course, your anger is directed at the lack of science in Spore?
I suppose someone might decide that making Maxis waste a double-wide buttload of money making a product nobody wants might be a bizarre form of revenge...but I'm having a hard time seeing more than one or two votes being cast on [i]THAT[/i] basis.

And if they're angry at Spore...didja ever stop to think [i]WHY[/i] they're angry at Spore? Truth to tell, I [i]STARTED[/i] this thread/poll out of anger...anger that the science had been leeched out of Spore, anger that I wasn't going to get to play the awesome game that would have resulted from Spore staying on the science track.
Being angry doesn't invalidate the poll...it [i]legitimizes[/i] it; people are angry with Spore, with Maxis, with EA, and we'd like something [i]DONE[/i] about that. This poll is a reflection of that desire.

And I still notice that for every one person who votes no, at least ten vote yes. Chew on that for a moment...I'll wait.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

True RG.
I don't disagree and as usual your reasoning makes perfect sense, now let me re read it just for the fun of it

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ashloc — GMT

yes yes yes did I say yes?

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Moach — GMT

no apathy!!! the thread LIVES!!!! hahaha!!! Science Spore FOREVER!!!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

I love you guys!

And I love that I'm not aone!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

From despair.com:

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/MinionJoe/lolcats/apathy.jpg[/IMG]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=MinionJoe]From despair.com:

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/MinionJoe/lolcats/apathy.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

Awesome

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=Parvati]Awesome [/quote]

I <3 despair.com. I highly recommend checking out their calendars and posters.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Will do

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SmokeyPSD — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=vermil]Well, I don't know what "science Spore" is.[/quote]

Maxis got divided up into two camps: Science and Cute. Cute won. We want Science Spore here in this thread.

[quote]
See, the center of this game is the editor, not simulation.[/quote]

And that's the [i]problem.[/i]
It really should be a blending of the two...but if you have to emphasize one, it should be the simulation, not the editor.[/quote]

Is that really how it happened? I can't believe that. They should've launched BOTH, and swept up both ends of the market (inserting countless profanities now).

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=SmokeyPSD]Is that really how it happened? I can't believe that.[/quote]

Indeed it is. Search the name Chris Hecker and you're sure to find news articles with him bragging about how he convinced Will Wright to give up all that boring science stuff and instead make the game fun for kids.

(Edit: Fixed)

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=MinionJoe][quote=SmokeyPSD]Is that really how it happened? I can't believe that.[/quote]

Indeed it is. Search the name Chris Heckler and you're sure to find news articles with him bragging about how he convinced Will Wright to give up all that boring science stuff and instead make the game fun for kids.[/quote]

WHich only makes me gnash my teeth even further. If you hear Will Wright talk about it, "all that science stuff" was [i]FOR[/i] kids.

Look, maybe I was exceptional or something, but as a kid, I was curious and [i]liked[/i] to learn when it wasn't rammed down my throat. And learning when it was presented as entertainment was fun, too.
People don't give kids enough credit. I like to look at the original Star Wars movies as an example: on the surface, they seemed like they were for kids, but they tackled complex spiritual, social, and familial issues which common wisdom [i]TODAY[/i] would say that kids can't understand...but back [i]THEN,[/i] in the late-seventies/early-eighties, kids just [i]yummed[/i] those movies right up! And adults dug 'em too. (About the prequels, tho...don't go there; not relevant. Please...keep this discussion and analogy on track, okay?)
If you translate that to Spore, keeping the science in would not have killed the game's fun-value. It wouldn't. I think kids would have loved it, and I know I would have. Give it a chance!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Visko — GMT

182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing

In fact im going to link this thread in my sig

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]Actually his name is Hecker (no L)[/quote]

Right you are! Thank you for the correction!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=Visko]182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing

In fact im going to link this thread in my sig[/quote]

Sadly with over one million box sales recorded to date. It makes the (poll) numbers insignificant. The silent majority (non-forum/lurkers) wins once again.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Visko]182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing
[/quote]

76% of us want o play Science Spore.

What boggles me is that this seems to mean [i]NOTHING[/i] to Maxis. Apparently.
Will Wright should be jumping up and down right now, shouting, "See? See???" and firing the living daylights out of a whole bunch of people, and giving [i]US[/i] just cause to pop champagne corks...but no.

Does anyone else kinna feel more than a little betrayed?
Maxis: first against the wall when the revolution came.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Visko]182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing
[/quote]

76% of us want o play Science Spore.

What boggles me is that this seems to mean [i]NOTHING[/i] to Maxis. Apparently.
Will Wright should be jumping up and down right now, shouting, "See? See???" and firing the living daylights out of a whole bunch of people, and giving [i]US[/i] just cause to pop champagne corks...but no.

Does anyone else kinna feel more than a little betrayed?
Maxis: first against the wall when the revolution came. [/quote]

76% of less than 1% of recorded box sales. Not really an impressive number RG. Get 76% of recorded box purchasers on your team and they'd pay attention.
Not to say I don't agree with you on an intellectual level. But cold facts make for depressing reading don't they ?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SPYDR — GMT

[quote=EdCase512][quote=Visko]182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing

In fact im going to link this thread in my sig[/quote]

Sadly with over one million box sales recorded to date. It makes the (poll) numbers insignificant. The silent majority (non-forum/lurkers) wins once again.[/quote]

i bet a lot of people who bought the game bought what they thought was going to be the science spore they were promised. the number of sales doesn't tell you what the buyers were expecting.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Neruu — GMT

its a horrible idea to do this early.. they'll just probably wait a few years to make a expansion like this.. 2 spore pc games early if it happens.. monkeys will grow wings and attack KFC... its just a bad idea period.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SPYDR — GMT

as others have said and i've thought of as well. there are 2 sides to the spore fan base, casual and 'hardcore'. well if profit is your motivation, and we all know it is because you're owned by yet another greedy company, not your fault. anyways, if profit is the bottom line, and your fans are divided, don't pick a side, give them both! you'll make that much more money. just like picking the difficulty level you should have the option (option being a key thing to a game with supposedly limitlessly creativity) of "science/hardcore" game or the "casual/kiddie" game. then we all have both Spores in one super Spore! the people who are complaining aren't people whom hate the game and never wanna play it, if that was so, we wouldn't waste our time on the forums trying to get it fixed. we complain out of love. we want this to be all that it can be, it's tough love. we love you evolution, we love you games. but work with your fans, take our advice, or you won't be taking our money.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SmokeyPSD — GMT

Catering to the lowest common denominator worked with LocoRoco, it's a puzzle game, a cute puzzle game.

With spore, it's just an insult, to have RTS, RPG, CIV elements, etc, all feeling like that if they were isolated, they'd be nothing more than a free internet game.

Not to mention giving us a glimpse of something different to begin with.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Finnical — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Visko]182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing
[/quote]

76% of us want o play Science Spore.

What boggles me is that this seems to mean [i]NOTHING[/i] to Maxis. Apparently.
Will Wright should be jumping up and down right now, shouting, "See? See???" and firing the living daylights out of a whole bunch of people, and giving [i]US[/i] just cause to pop champagne corks...but no.

Does anyone else kinna feel more than a little betrayed?
Maxis: first against the wall when the revolution came. [/quote]
It takes time for big entities to move. Give Maxis time. Like any large entity, they'll be split on the matter for personal reasons, but the majority will shift.

And my god, we finally found who to blame for the gameplay half of this whole controversy. I'm guessing a lot of people are getting the tar and feathers right now. This guy made a mistake that permanently damaged seven years of work from Maxis. I'm more than a little angry.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=SPYDR][quote=EdCase512][quote=Visko]182 to 16 says a lot even just right now. I guess they really DIDN'T know what they were doing

In fact im going to link this thread in my sig[/quote]

Sadly with over one million box sales recorded to date. It makes the (poll) numbers insignificant. The silent majority (non-forum/lurkers) wins once again.[/quote]

i bet a lot of people who bought the game bought what they thought was going to be the science spore they were promised. the number of sales doesn't tell you what the buyers were expecting.[/quote]

Neither does apathy and silence. No matter how you perceive reality..there are still less than 1% of recorded sales being represented. Not enough for anyone to take notice.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Neruu — GMT

if you expect a video game to be like previews that are like a year old.. then you must be new to video games

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]Not enough for anyone to take notice.[/quote]

Except that we've been assured that the developers and programmers are reading the forums.

*shrugs*

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SmokeyPSD — GMT

[quote=Neruu]if you expect a video game to be like previews that are like a year old.. then you must be new to video games[/quote]

The point is that it is "like" the previews a year old, but downsized, not changed, just downsized, even in 2005, I can still see what we have now.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=Neruu]if you expect a video game to be like previews that are like a year old.. then you must be new to video games[/quote]

Kid, I've been playing video games ever since K-mart started selling Pong consoles. There's "development changes" and then there's "misleading the customer". In time, you too will learn the difference.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

McClintick — GMT

Voted 'yes'. I'd be behind this entirely.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=MinionJoe][quote=EdCase512]Not enough for anyone to take notice.[/quote]

Except that we've been assured that the developers and programmers are reading the forums.

*shrugs*[/quote]

Yes, I'm sure they do read them. IF (and it's a big if) the game was universally slammed for NOT being science Spore (put aside all the other reasons it is/has been slammed for). Then maybe you'd see a focus shift. But here's the rub.

It isn't...hell the poll doesn't even represent a signifigant portion of registered forum users, never mind retail box sales.
The loudest voice does not always equate to the majority opinion.

To clarify I'd love Science Spore. I am just a realist.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]To clarify I'd love Science Spore. I am just a realist.[/quote]

You and me both, bub. I've no illusions that my complaining will actually accomplish anything.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Merreton — GMT

I got one question. (that is because I only read the first two pages and don't care to go through all ten. So if its been awnsered, forgive me.)

What exactly is the "original vision" of Spore?

Should I be looking at what SpongB6F1 said on the first page?
(oh my, thats two)

Or did this "vision" come from other source?
(oh noes three! [img]http://209.85.12.231/583/137/emo/frantic.gif[/img])

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jarek — GMT

I hope they make it, but they probably won't. Look at the sims, it took until the sims 3 (which isn't even out yet) to get a feature people wanted since the original game, free roaming through the neighborhood. Its probably the same argument, its not feasible for them to do it yet.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]
76% of less than 1% of recorded box sales. Not really an impressive number RG. Get 76% of recorded box purchasers on your team and they'd pay attention.
Not to say I don't agree with you on an intellectual level. But cold facts make for depressing reading don't they ?[/quote]

And...what? You think they're going to assume that the numbers [i]HERE[/i] aren't a microcosmic representation of the numbers out there? From what I've been seeing, the number of people [i]still[/i] playing Spore are dropping sharply, critics are coming around and panning the game...at what point can the facts no longer be ignored?

[quote]It takes time for big entities to move.[/quote]

It takes five minutes to post a, "Heard you; we're on it," update.

[quote]Give Maxis time. [/quote]

They've had [i]PLENTY[/i] of time; if they don't want to lose their fanbase, the time to issue a statement is [i]NOW.[/i] (Actually, it was a month ago, but now will do. A month from now might be too late.)

[quote]And my god, we finally found who to blame for the gameplay half of this whole controversy. I'm guessing a lot of people are getting the tar and feathers right now. This guy made a mistake that permanently damaged seven years of work from Maxis. I'm more than a little angry. [/quote]

Ditto. You'd think [i]SOME[/i]one at Maxis would sit up, take notice, and weigh in just a little bit. Seriously, it's been, what, more than a month? And we've done nothing but make our opinions known? And I, personally, have been trying to goad Maxis into making a statement? You'd think they'd have [i]said[/i] something--[i]ANYTHING![/i]--by now, neh?

[quote]Its probably the same argument, its not feasible for them to do it yet. [/quote]

Nope. We know now that it was upheaval, a kind of coup at Maxis, that created this crapstorm.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=EdCase512]
76% of less than 1% of recorded box sales. Not really an impressive number RG. Get 76% of recorded box purchasers on your team and they'd pay attention.
Not to say I don't agree with you on an intellectual level. But cold facts make for depressing reading don't they ?[/quote]

And...what? You think they're going to assume that the numbers [i]HERE[/i] aren't a microcosmic representation of the numbers out there? From what I've been seeing, the number of people [i]still[/i] playing Spore are dropping sharply, critics are coming around and panning the game...at what point can the facts no longer be ignored?
[/quote]

No I do not assume that. I do assume that EA controls the purse strings. I do assume the money is in the bank. I most certainly do assume that the business plan is in place to attempt to recoup development costs. I do KNOW that changing business plans midstream will not achieve this lofty (corporate imperative) aim.
Never forget leisure software once done, standard practice = reassign anyone not working on expansions to next title.

If you, I and others are ever going to get "science spore' it will come later rather than sooner. Or at best be wedged in to the release as expansion 2 since the first one is already announced.
No amount of angst ridden wailing,moaning and gnashing of teeth will change this.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]
If you, I and others are ever going to get "science spore' it will come later rather than sooner. Or at best be wedged in to the release as expansion 2 since the first one is already announced.
No amount of angst ridden wailing,moaning and gnashing of teeth will change this.[/quote]

A large enough number of people staging a boycott might. I know that's a pipe dream, but you know what happens if we don't try?

[i]Nothing.[/i]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Neruu — GMT

boycotting a game.. to wait 5 years to get a new game.. sounds smart?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Finnical — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]Yes, I'm sure they do read them. IF (and it's a big if) the game was universally slammed for NOT being science Spore (put aside all the other reasons it is/has been slammed for). Then maybe you'd see a focus shift. But here's the rub.

It isn't...hell the poll doesn't even represent a signifigant portion of registered forum users, never mind retail box sales.
The loudest voice does not always equate to the majority opinion.

To clarify I'd love Science Spore. I am just a realist.[/quote]
I'll agree that the forums aren't a microcosm of the customers, as RocketGirl suggested. However, a vast majority of the people who bought the game won't ever post online, but that [i]doesn't mean they wouldn't agree if they did.[/i] What is seen on the forums should be taken with a grain of salt, [i]HOWEVER[/i], the forums are a distilled reaction of the more interested portion of the customers. What happens here can be used as a measure for what happens elsewhere, somewhat. And I can tell you that both the other people I've seen play the game, who would never post on a forum in their life, are annoyed that the game is too cutesy.

I think the thought that goes through a lot of people's minds when they play Spore is "This isn't as innovative as I expected. It's too simple. That's disappointing." I think you'd find the majority of people would agree with us, even if they haven't thought enough about it to realize that they would.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Neruu]boycotting a game.. to wait 5 years to get a new game.. sounds smart?[/quote]

I'm not sure it would be five years. Spore already has an engine, and the code is obviously already written--I assume they've saved it--for the physics and stuff. A few art fixes, some code tweaks, a lot of testing...I would imagine a year or two, tops, honestly. Having been involved in game production...a year or two is [i]generous.[/i] Seriously.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ccurving — GMT

[quote=Neruu]boycotting a game.. to wait 5 years to get a new game.. sounds smart?[/quote]

It IS smart, because if EA has to spend five years developing a new Spore, that's five years that they won't be getting money from it. When if they had just done it right the first time, instead of trying to put out a game that could make the most money humanly possible, they'd have been collecting money hand over fist for five years.

Which makes me think that Hell will freeze solid before EA decides to develop SciSpore, unfortunately.

But really...people complain that we "ruin the game" for them by barging into threads and complaining. Coming in and saying "your boycott is a stupid idea" is different in what way?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=EdCase512]
If you, I and others are ever going to get "science spore' it will come later rather than sooner. Or at best be wedged in to the release as expansion 2 since the first one is already announced.
No amount of angst ridden wailing,moaning and gnashing of teeth will change this.[/quote]

A large enough number of people staging a boycott might. I know that's a pipe dream, but you know what happens if we don't try?

[i]Nothing.[/i][/quote]

Large enough to impact the bottom line ?
Too late the deed is done the boxes are sold. Expansions can be cancelled. Support in the form of patches can be reduced.
Potential sequel giving you what you crave ? CANCELLED due to unwise business investment decision.

Good grief, PC titles are frankly "niche" in the overall gameplan of companies such as EA. Depressing ? very much so.
Truth currently ? sadly yes.
You need to realise that after saying your piece. It's time to stop. If they are going to notice, they've done so already.
Currently your actually counterproductive. You are in actual danger of (potentially) making people avoid this forum. Or draw the conclusion that Spore is not worth their time. Changes do not occur to a "dead title".
We get it RG, we understand. But you are becoming repetitive and sounding ,frankly, petulant.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SmokeyPSD — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Neruu]boycotting a game.. to wait 5 years to get a new game.. sounds smart?[/quote]

I'm not sure it would be five years. Spore already has an engine, and the code is obviously already written--I assume they've saved it--for the physics and stuff. A few art fixes, some code tweaks, a lot of testing...I would imagine a year or two, tops, honestly. Having been involved in game production...a year or two is [i]generous.[/i] Seriously.[/quote]

They intend on milking the engine too for other platforms.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]
Large enough to impact the bottom line ?
Too late the deed is done the boxes are sold.
[/quote]

As any good retailer and product-maker can tell you, the bread-and-butter of making money is [i]repeat business.[/i]

Think about that...I'll wait.

[quote]
You need to realise that after saying your piece. It's time to stop. If they are going to notice, they've done so already.
[/quote]

Then let them [i]SAY SO.[/i] I'm not asking a lot, just an official word on the subject, explicit and unambiguous.

[quote]
Currently your actually counterproductive. You are in actual danger of (potentially) making people avoid this forum. Or draw the conclusion that Spore is not worth their time.
[/quote]

While this is not my intent, I wouldn't mind having this effect; all the more likely that a sudden drop in attendance and playership would finally get the attention of EA/Maxis.

[quote]
We get it RG, we understand. But you are becoming repetitive and sounding ,frankly, petulant.[/quote]

...and?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Visko — GMT

Let me point out the fact there is a very defined line between record sales and the desire for Spore 05. One being that, everyone who probably wants Spore 05, already owns Spore 08. Sales figures mean nothing in a pole like this because we're asking people who OWN THE GAME!!!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Visko]Let me point out the fact there is a very defined line between record sales and the desire for Spore 05. One being that, everyone who probably wants Spore 05, already owns Spore 08. Sales figures mean nothing in a pole like this because we're asking people who OWN THE GAME!!![/quote]

...and who are clearly starting to become disaffected enough to not want to buy the peripherals and add-ons.

Think about that for a second. Think about the time, effort, and money Maxis/EA are about to pour into stuff that it's looking increasingly like people aren't about to buy.

Anyone with any brains at all would be thinking seriously about their tactics, maybe reconsidering.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

Selective quoting to appear superior is so '90's RG.
Answer the niche market section. Hmmmm ? it kind of defeats your repeat business statement.

I don't need to think about it. EA can continue to release Madden '10, '11, '12 and all their other recycled crap ad nauseum...

they will RAKE IN MONEY FROM THEIR MAJORITY MARKET. LEAVING YOU BEHIND TO TURN OUT THE LIGHT.

(sorry the caps are for emphasizing)

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]Selective quoting to appear superior is so '90's RG.
Answer the niche market section. Hmmmm ? it kind of defeats your repeat business statement.

I don't need to think about it. EA can continue to release Madden '10, '11, '12 and all their other recycled crap ad nauseum...[/quote]

Except that Maxis, as a division of EA, will be cut loose if it isn't profitable. That's how these things work; companies don't throw good money after bad; they're not likely to keep supporting Maxis if Maxis [i]games[/i] aren't profitable.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

Actually Maxis are owned by EA , owned. They own the IP , They can choose to reassign developers. Maxis is an EA brand ,nothing more or less. They simply stop branding Maxis on a game.

pretty sure that won't trouble them overly.

Then what happens ? Oh yes, the game you're gagging for...gets made when hell freezes over. it becomes a toxic brandname.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]Actually Maxis are owned by EA , owned. They own the IP , They can choose to reassign developers. Maxis is an EA brand ,nothing more or less. They simply stop branding Maxis on a game.
[/quote]

Um, no. EA is Maxis's [i]backer,[/i] but Maxis is a separate company for all intents and purposes.

[quote]
Then what happens ? Oh yes, the game you're gagging for...gets made when hell freezes over. it becomes a toxic brandname.
[/quote]

Well, like I've been saying, I just want definitive word one way or the other. That's all. Yea or nay; how hard is that?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

Check again RG maxis is OWNED by EA.

read this [url]http://www.secinfo.com/dut49.814e.d.htm[/url]

Pay special attention to this :

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

This AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION (this "Agreement") is made and
entered into as of June 4, 1997, among Electronic Arts Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Electronic Arts"), Village Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Electronic Arts ("Merger Sub"), and
Maxis, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Maxis").

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]Check again RG maxis is OWNED by EA.
[/quote]

You missed my point. EA may [i]OWN[/i] Maxis, but it's not as if they are exactly the same company.

What's a good analogy...? It's like the Army and the Marines; they're both US government military branches, and they probably cooperate with one another, but they're essentially separate. That's not a perfect analogy, but in essence...Maxis [i]DOES[/i] have a certain amount of autonomy; it's not like the EA Sports folks are traipsing through the Maxis offices all the time or anything.

So if EA decides to cut Maxis loose, it's not like they're going to tell the Maxis folks to come on in and work on their other titles; they're probably just out of work.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

I have to disagree.

This is more like The Army is EA and Maxis is a division within that army.

If the 107th Spode Division doesn't do well, they usually get broken up and reassigned to other areas. If the individuals cannot keep up, they are let go.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=EdCase512]Check again RG maxis is OWNED by EA.
[/quote]

You missed my point. EA may [i]OWN[/i] Maxis, but it's not as if they are exactly the same company.

What's a good analogy...? It's like the Army and the Marines; they're both US government military branches, and they probably cooperate with one another, but they're essentially separate. That's not a perfect analogy, but in essence...Maxis [i]DOES[/i] have a certain amount of autonomy; it's not like the EA Sports folks are traipsing through the Maxis offices all the time or anything.

So if EA decides to cut Maxis loose, it's not like they're going to tell the Maxis folks to come on in and work on their other titles; they're probably just out of work.[/quote]

More importantly EA owns the rights to Maxis titles and the name Maxis. Without those even Will Wright will have difficulty finding backers.
Also if you truely think they are seperate entities , stop, breathe, apply reality. Maxis will produce exactly what EA desires and to a schedule. THAT is what wholly owned subsidiary means.
It is something I deal with daily in my "real" life.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Jackuul]I have to disagree.

This is more like The Army is EA and Maxis is a division within that army.

If the 107th Spode Division doesn't do well, they usually get broken up and reassigned to other areas. If the individuals cannot keep up, they are let go. [/quote]

That's just my point: Maxis is [i]NOT[/i] the kind of company that could get broken up and reassigned to other areas; Maxis is owned by EA but it's a completely separate umbrella. Seriously. I've worked for companies just like this, with a massive parent company that has satellite companies that work for it, but might as well be separate; one section goes under, it's usually [i]GONE,[/i] not reabsorbed.

I'm pretty SPORE sure Maxis is the same way.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Jackuul]I have to disagree.

This is more like The Army is EA and Maxis is a division within that army.

If the 107th Spode Division doesn't do well, they usually get broken up and reassigned to other areas. If the individuals cannot keep up, they are let go. [/quote]

That's just my point: Maxis is [i]NOT[/i] the kind of company that could get broken up and reassigned to other areas; Maxis is owned by EA but it's a completely separate umbrella. Seriously. I've worked for companies just like this, with a massive parent company that has satellite companies that work for it, but might as well be separate; one section goes under, it's usually [i]GONE,[/i] not reabsorbed.

I'm pretty SPORE sure Maxis is the same way.[/quote]

Well, the West Woods are silent without the Bullfrogs...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=Jackuul][quote=RocketGirl][quote=Jackuul]I have to disagree.

This is more like The Army is EA and Maxis is a division within that army.

If the 107th Spode Division doesn't do well, they usually get broken up and reassigned to other areas. If the individuals cannot keep up, they are let go. [/quote]

That's just my point: Maxis is [i]NOT[/i] the kind of company that could get broken up and reassigned to other areas; Maxis is owned by EA but it's a completely separate umbrella. Seriously. I've worked for companies just like this, with a massive parent company that has satellite companies that work for it, but might as well be separate; one section goes under, it's usually [i]GONE,[/i] not reabsorbed.

I'm pretty SPORE sure Maxis is the same way.[/quote]

Well, the West Woods are silent without the Bullfrogs... [/quote]

Nicely played sir

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Visko — GMT

bump!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

Merciful Zeus! We're well over 200 votes now! Egad!

And the No votes are still at 17?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Visko — GMT

I hold firmly on my belief that if you're going to give ANY information to the public about what kind of game your making, your ideas and concepts or WHATEVER, that you MUST communicate with your community and listen to their input.

You don't walk up to someone and say "Hey, nice day isn't it! How are you doing" Then walk away while they're talking.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RedLightning777 — GMT

[quote=Visko]Let me point out the fact there is a very defined line between record sales and the desire for Spore 05. One being that, everyone who probably wants Spore 05, already owns Spore 08. Sales figures mean nothing in a pole like this because we're asking people who OWN THE GAME!!![/quote]

I wanted the spore they showed me.. not this, well .. game with the actual game coming after winter. I wanted what I saw. Thats what I thought I was getting when I bought it. So technically I wanted it before I bought the game.

Meant in the nicest way possible. Just wanted to say something

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]Merciful Zeus! We're well over 200 votes now! Egad!

And the No votes are still at 17?

[/quote]

Once again this is an incredible overreaction RG. Even the naysayers are spouting "Oh no! players are stopping playing theres only * number of players !"

Fill the * in with any number you can find and this poll accounts for a miniscule amount. Forums are always filled (actively) with the loudest, most self-opinionated, attention grabbing or genuinely committed. We all fall into one or another of these categories.
unfortunately that makes us the exception too, rather than, the "average" player. EA (amongst others) knows this, counts on this.
It is why they, and again others, can continue to churn out badly supported garbage repeatedly. It's not a pleasant truth but certainly, examining the track record, appears to BE the truth.

What you are failing to realise is your preaching to the converted. Active members here either agree (which, now this may suprise you..) with you. I do, in the regards of what you desire. Or not because they love/hate what they have.
Your constant barrage is doing nothing other than pushing away those who do not. Most probably just ignore any post you make.
Maintain your position, it has some validity. But consider your strategy.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Kingcobrasaurus — GMT

I think Spore should be the way it was released, but on easy mode, and on normal and hard mode you can have scientific spore. Because adding more science to the game would make it a bit more difficult. Like you could suffer diseases in the creature stage by bacteria-like cells that get in you if you stay in the water too long. Or in space stage you would have to go through asteroid belts.

But really, the only thing that needs scientific on spore is the cell and creature stage. All the rest of the stages aren't really scientific. Tribal is more like anthropology (okay that is a science but still...) civilization stage is like politics and stuff like that, and space stage is astronomy.

Overall I like spore as it is.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

But wouldn't the whole game be more interesting if it were a living ecosystem?

Your creatures have leg muscles that are too big, so they use too much food moving around, so they have to eat all the nearby creatures to survive. So the local ecosystem crashes and your population dwindles down to a more manageable level.

Your herbivores eat all the small groundcover plants in the region. Not only is there a local herbivore famine, but the groundcover is now gone, so the topsoil washes away.

You eat plants that have seeds, then excrete the seeds (this should be handled abstractly ) and so eventually the plants that you eat become more and more common.

You evolve a large pair of tusks. In your attacks on the local herbivore population, because of genetic variation, some of them have larger bony plates than others. The bony plates protect those, but you eat all the ones without heavy plating. So the bony-plated ones have no competition for fruit, and all their offspring end up with bony plates, some even thicker than the parents. You need to evolve longer tusks to penetrate.

In space stage, all the above is happening within the ecosystem. This would make the terraforming game far, FAR more interesting and involving.

You come back to a planet after not visiting it for a while and all the animals and plants are subtly different. This could be handled simply by parametric variation of form, perhaps randomly, or by running lots of very simplified test combats and extrapolating trend lines.

Plants compete for sunlight, within a simplified lighting model possibly having to do simply with how much light the plant needs, as well as the area of a top-down snapshot of the plant determining how much sunlight it gets, with taller plants shading the ones under them.

Herbivores eat leaves off of low trees and shrubs, thereby selecting for taller ones.

A water and water retention model having to do with plant morphology may evolve trees with big barrel-like trunks to hold lots of water, or small succulent plants.

Perhaps plants can have needles or other nasties to either attack or drive off herbivores, in tough environments.

Animal AI evolves over time. This would just be a simple parametric variation of behavior-- loopiness of search algorithms, when to eat, when to run away from a fight, what animal species they like or run away from.

The idea is it would be about as simple as SimLife, or maybe a bit more complex than that, so that when you're away from a planet for N years, and then make planetfall, it runs the simulation for N ticks, with mutation parameters turned up higher the longer you've been gone. Thus, the longer you're gone, the different the local populations will look.

When you are doing things that are not as intensive perhaps on the processor and graphics card, like flying around in space, the game steals processor ticks sometimes to run simulations on the planets you visit most frequently, thereby perpetuating the illusion that all your planets are evolving equally.

If a player seems interested in one part of gameplay-- city building or terraforming or direct interactions with plants and animals-- that part of the game gets more processor priority and the rest of the simulations get abstracted more.

Thus, if the player is at war and there are tanks moving up and down his homeworld's city streets killing things, we stop worrying for now about how the myrtle spurge plant is doing on icy, inhospitable Etamin Nine.

Now isn't this much more interesting than the canned minigame-based gameplay we have right now?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Kingcobrasaurus]I think Spore should be the way it was released, but on easy mode, and on normal and hard mode you can have scientific spore. Because adding more science to the game would make it a bit more difficult. [/quote]

But infinitely more interesting.

[quote]
But really, the only thing that needs scientific on spore is the cell and creature stage. All the rest of the stages aren't really scientific.
[/quote]

That's...well, really, really incorrect.

Science informs [i]all[/i] stages of Spore; nobody really escapes science.
And this is especially true in the Space stage, where you are supposed to be terraforming planets. Ecology is important, cosmology is important, natural selection is important.
Even just building a single planet, fine tuning the atmosphere and the biome correctly balanced would be a singularly interesting challenge: making sure the animals have enough plants to eat, making sure the predators have enough prey, making sure the plants have and produce enough oxygen, making sure the temperature is right for life, etc... Spore has that [i]NOW,[/i] but in a rudimentary, checklist-style form, as opposed to an emergent, highly variable form that takes biology into account.

[i]THAT'S[/i] the game I wanted to play, and science pervades every last aspect of it.

And ghadis seems to agree on that point, quite eloquently so.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

In Tribal where would it show up?

Maybe living foodwebs so you could kill off a herbivore species and then the predators that lived off of that herbivore would come looking for you.

Also tribal would be much more interesting with a dynamic environment; possibly an ice age or a big drought, or sea level changes.

'Course, that would require that they change the horrible canned villages.

[quote]And ghadis seems to agree on that point, quite eloquently so. [/quote]

Yeah, well, I had a good teacher.

His initials are W.W.

Also, RG, check out Primordial Life if you haven't done so already. Google it, it's cool as hell.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]Science informs [i]all[/i] stages of Spore; nobody really escapes science.[/quote]

A man named Ted tried to. Rather unkempt fellow. However, Spore makes me think more and more than technology just might be bad.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SivCorp — GMT

[quote=ghadis]But wouldn't the whole game be more interesting if it were a living ecosystem?

Your creatures have leg muscles that are too big, so they use too much food moving around, so they have to eat all the nearby creatures to survive. So the local ecosystem crashes and your population dwindles down to a more manageable level.

Your herbivores eat all the small groundcover plants in the region. Not only is there a local herbivore famine, but the groundcover is now gone, so the topsoil washes away.

You eat plants that have seeds, then excrete the seeds (this should be handled abstractly ) and so eventually the plants that you eat become more and more common.

You evolve a large pair of tusks. In your attacks on the local herbivore population, because of genetic variation, some of them have larger bony plates than others. The bony plates protect those, but you eat all the ones without heavy plating. So the bony-plated ones have no competition for fruit, and all their offspring end up with bony plates, some even thicker than the parents. You need to evolve longer tusks to penetrate.

In space stage, all the above is happening within the ecosystem. This would make the terraforming game far, FAR more interesting and involving.

You come back to a planet after not visiting it for a while and all the animals and plants are subtly different. This could be handled simply by parametric variation of form, perhaps randomly, or by running lots of very simplified test combats and extrapolating trend lines.

Plants compete for sunlight, within a simplified lighting model possibly having to do simply with how much light the plant needs, as well as the area of a top-down snapshot of the plant determining how much sunlight it gets, with taller plants shading the ones under them.

Herbivores eat leaves off of low trees and shrubs, thereby selecting for taller ones.

A water and water retention model having to do with plant morphology may evolve trees with big barrel-like trunks to hold lots of water, or small succulent plants.

Perhaps plants can have needles or other nasties to either attack or drive off herbivores, in tough environments.

Animal AI evolves over time. This would just be a simple parametric variation of behavior-- loopiness of search algorithms, when to eat, when to run away from a fight, what animal species they like or run away from.

The idea is it would be about as simple as SimLife, or maybe a bit more complex than that, so that when you're away from a planet for N years, and then make planetfall, it runs the simulation for N ticks, with mutation parameters turned up higher the longer you've been gone. Thus, the longer you're gone, the different the local populations will look.

When you are doing things that are not as intensive perhaps on the processor and graphics card, like flying around in space, the game steals processor ticks sometimes to run simulations on the planets you visit most frequently, thereby perpetuating the illusion that all your planets are evolving equally.

If a player seems interested in one part of gameplay-- city building or terraforming or direct interactions with plants and animals-- that part of the game gets more processor priority and the rest of the simulations get abstracted more.

Thus, if the player is at war and there are tanks moving up and down his homeworld's city streets killing things, we stop worrying for now about how the myrtle spurge plant is doing on icy, inhospitable Etamin Nine.

Now isn't this much more interesting than the canned minigame-based gameplay we have right now?[/quote]

and that would be the way it should be. why do the natives know more than the chiefs, huh?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

[quote]and that would be the way it should be. why do the natives know more than the chiefs, huh?[/quote]
Possibly, they think they know more than we do about making great piles of money.

However, I'll betcha that attitude blew up in their face big time on this one.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Mad_Scientist666 — GMT

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Yea most definatly.
There is clearly a market for it.

Any publisher must have seen this by now.
If not only because of our reaction towards Spore.

If Maxis doesn't revisit Spore another publisher will.
So the qeustion is, will Maxis take the risk on missing out on the pie?

They already have all the code and mechanics in place to release that game.

Hell with all the preliminary work on this version of Spore they could release the real game within 6 months. or 10 months for some Q&A testing.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

Unless the New Pack/Expansion doesn't sell Maxis/EA have no incentive to build anything other than more expansions/part packs. Despite what it appears like on these boards (of which the majority seem to be anti-spore) it has been my experience that what people say on forums and what the result in the real world is are totally different.

I think Maxis/EA will make money with expansions etc.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]Unless the New Pack/Expansion doesn't sell Maxis/EA have no incentive to build anything other than more expansions/part packs. Despite what it appears like on these boards (of which the majority seem to be anti-spore) it has been my experience that what people say on forums and what the result in the real world is are totally different.

I think Maxis/EA will make money with expansions etc.[/quote]

That is probably the sad truth Eek. (don't mind me calling you Eek I hope)
But that doesnt mean we should just give up.

Only if its to draw attention to the demand.
Or to get a clear cut answer.

I am very much capable to go and pitch the idea to the only game developer of worth in my country.
They did Beyond Divinity. Actually I think I just might do that.

Still , we deserve a clear cut answer from Maxis/EA.
But if you look at the patch notes they do listen to us.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

[quote] it has been my experience that what people say on forums and what the result in the real world is are totally different. [/quote]
Maybe so, but xfire stats and the metacritic userscore are usually right on the money. Things are not looking so hot on either front.

Also you have to admit that the level of discontent here is pretty unusual for a game that runs at all. It's comparable to what we saw for the Battlecruiser 3000 games.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ashloc — GMT

yes

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

PigletCNC — GMT

Dudes, olook at the outcome of the poll, come on Maxis, admit you screwed up! Even my mon who is an avid Sims 2 fan thinks it should have been more sciency.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

But even many of those people on these boards who are in the "we want science spore" still play the current game... RG knew before she brought the main game she wouldn't like it. OK she "hoped" but the same phenomenon will continue and EA/Maxis will make their money.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Worldbreaker276 — GMT

I'm hoping they can savage this game to be even somthing close to the 2005 demo.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Lemnx — GMT

I think a Spore Science type game would be good. I would like it to be rather difficult and educational as well as fun. I was hoping to be able to use this game as a fun teaching tool. It is a bit dumbed down currently though. The game showed real promise but now it is something that, while good, will soon end up on the shelf.

I was hoping to have DNA to play with that would randomly alter my creations. I didnt actually follow the game before it was released. I just liked the idea of it. So what I was hoping to see was categories of DNA helices: Reptile, Mammal, etc. Then categories off to the side where we think DNA codes for Fur, scales, fangs, etc. that we could tinker with and then get results. We would incorporate whatever section of the DNA helix we wanted into our creation and it would change accordingly...maybe even badly. Then as that creature fared well it would create a save spot for you denoting a positive change. If the creature didnt fare well then you would go back to the previous save point you had accrued to and you would make different modifications. Teaching Darwinism and how things actually evolve.

So I guess what I am saying is I wanted to have fun thinking and designing and consequently learning.

The same would go for some level of complexity in each of the other stages.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]RG knew before she brought the main game she wouldn't like it.
[/quote]

Excuse me, but...how about you let me speak for [i]myself[/i] about what I knew, thought, hoped, or didn't, uh-kay?

And the truth is that I [i]didn't[/i] know. I was afraid and I hoped, but I didn't [i]KNOW.[/i]

Truth to tell, I was actually [i]surprised[/i]...Spore actually managed to be [i]WORSE[/i] than I'd feared. And, boy, do I wish that were an exaggeration!

Won't get fooled again.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Star system is getting to the point of beyond silly.

Lets fix that shall we.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Eekwotsthat]RG knew before she brought the main game she wouldn't like it.
[/quote]

Excuse me, but...how about you let me speak for [i]myself[/i] about what I knew, thought, hoped, or didn't, uh-kay?

And the truth is that I [i]didn't[/i] know. I was afraid and I hoped, but I didn't [i]KNOW.[/i]

Truth to tell, I was actually [i]surprised[/i]...Spore actually managed to be [i]WORSE[/i] than I'd feared. And, boy, do I wish that were an exaggeration!

Won't get fooled again.[/quote]

Sorry but you were told before you brought the game you wouldn't like it on the forums by myself and others. When you started on these forums complaining after the game came out I noted you were told. Your response was you "hoped" it would be different. As the main complainer and the champion of "I want science spore" I can hold you as a perfect example of the point. You suspected and in reality knew even if you dont admit it, that you were not going to like what spore had become but brought it anyway. That trend is what a lot of companies rely on. I'm not speaking for you, you do that perfectly well be yourself, I'm using you as an example.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]....[/quote]

Eventhoug she is the most vocal of us all.
She does not represent us by the letter.

Fact still is, they promised us Cheesecake and all we got was a cupcake.

Thats a fact that can not be debated about.
I'm not going to say they did the old bait and switch. But they did dupe us.
Wether or not you told RG is irrelevant to the fact that they have literally skinned the game to a point that it holds no relation to what they had told (and shown) us they were making.

A prime example of this would be the getting out of your spaceship that they came up with for the first expansion.
It was documented to be in the game.
Released game does not have this.

But whats that I catch with my eye beyond the bridge? An expansion that will let us leave our spaceships and interact with the enviroment.

Thats what this is about.
Not about RG willingly buying a game she knew she was not going to like. So you say I was not here when you told her. Do not fall back on politician speak and attack the person instead of attacking the message.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

@Eekwotsthat

I swear to god there was a post here by Numerator confirming she had in fact been very excited about the game, and made over 500 creations before it came out.

And by the way, at that point if you had told me Spore would be bad, I would have told you to shove it. It was not until I got to actually play the game that it dawned on me (see eleven stages of spore in signature).

I, like others, pre-ordered the game over a month in advance (and paid, and there was no option to undo it for me) and thus, I was unable to stop it, even if I had known. I expected the cute, I did, I did not expect the rape and lulz. I actually did not know what to expect from the game past a few screenshots, and I certainly did not expect the post-creature stages or even the creature stage to play out like they do.

Oh, and that whole "Told you" gotcha thing? Please. Before the game came out people who were rabidly awaiting it would regard you as people regard us now.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Moach — GMT

almost 80% of all players in these boards would prefer the "original" Spore... the Science version, that is....

whoever decided to dumb out the "simulator" side of this game should be immediately sacked!... someone THAT incompetent should never be allowed to work in this industry again!

that was probably on of the WORST decisions in the whole history of gaming... and i don´t think that´s too much an exageration....

i can´t even imagine why someone would go as far into over-simplifying a game in a way that it only pleases <20% of it´s potential audience, considerably compromising the reputation of Maxis, and whatever little reputation EA still had...

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]
Sorry but you were told before you brought the game you wouldn't like it on the forums by [u]myself and others.[/u]
[/quote]

Yeah, that's right, I was told...by you and other users.

But you know who I [i]WASN'T[/i] told by? Maxis or EA. [i]THEY[/i] stayed mum on the subject...and given that the only information I was willing to take as legitimate was from the people [i]making the game,[/i] and that any information from potential future users had to be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps you'll excuse me for not bowing to your prescience.

...finally.

[quote]
That trend is what a lot of companies rely on. I'm not speaking for you, you do that perfectly well be yourself, I'm using you as an example.[/quote]

And you're also using faulty logic and giving [i]yourself[/i] entirely too much credit, expecting your word to be taken entirely too much for granted. You've abandoned reason in favor of shouting, Stewie Griffin-like, [i]"Victory is mine!!!",[/i] and I'm simply not going to let you get away with it uncalled upon.

So let's set the record straight once and for all:
- Your pre-release postion was as much uninformed opinion as mine
- You do not have extra-sensory, precognitive powers
- The advertising and demoing of Spore had been misleading [i]AT BEST[/i] prior to release
- Your attempt at a gotcha-style, "I told you so!" now smacks of self-fellation and is unbecoming
- Your argument distracts from the main point of this thread, namely the desire for Science Spore and lobbying for its eventual creation and release
- Therefore you are off--repeat, [i]OFF[/i]--topic

Capische? Good. Now, let's [i]move the hell on![/i]
Thank you, and good night.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Eekwotsthat]
Sorry but you were told before you brought the game you wouldn't like it on the forums by [u]myself and others.[/u]
[/quote]

Yeah, that's right, I was told...by you and other users.

But you know who I [i]WASN'T[/i] told by? Maxis or EA. [i]THEY[/i] stayed mum on the subject...and given that the only information I was willing to take as legitimate was from the people [i]making the game,[/i] and that any information from potential future users had to be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps you'll excuse me for not bowing to your prescience.

...finally.

[quote]
That trend is what a lot of companies rely on. I'm not speaking for you, you do that perfectly well be yourself, I'm using you as an example.[/quote]

And you're also using faulty logic and giving [i]yourself[/i] entirely too much credit, expecting your word to be taken entirely too much for granted. You've abandoned reason in favor of shouting, Stewie Griffin-like, [i]"Victory is mine!!!",[/i] and I'm simply not going to let you get away with it uncalled upon.

So let's set the record straight once and for all:
- Your pre-release postion was as much uninformed opinion as mine
- You do not have extra-sensory, precognitive powers
- The advertising and demoing of Spore had been misleading [i]AT BEST[/i] prior to release
- Your attempt at a gotcha-style, "I told you so!" now smacks of self-fellation and is unbecoming
- Your argument distracts from the main point of this thread, namely the desire for Science Spore and lobbying for its eventual creation and release
- Therefore you are off--repeat, [i]OFF[/i]--topic

Capische? Good. Now, let's [i]move the hell on![/i]
Thank you, and good night. [/quote]

So, I shouldn't get my climbing gear and go to the top of his mountain for predictions of the future? :p

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Jackuul]
So, I shouldn't get my climbing gear and go to the top of his mountain for predictions of the future? :p[/quote]

No, not really.

The idea, honestly, is to ignore people like EekTheCat (*snork*) and see how we can move forward on these issues.
Truth to tell, I'm still totally sold on the [i]IDEA[/i] of Spore; it's just the execution of that idea that I have a problem with. And I suspect--given this poll--that many of you agree, and would really like to see Spore revisited, remade, given a second chance.

I mean, okay, with all my ranting and raving and campaigning, it's entirely possible that this part of the message has gotten quite lost. But that truly, genuinely is the point. Will Wright made me [i]believe[/i] in Spore, in the ideas behind it. I'm a fan of people like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, and they would have [i]LOVED[/i] Spore as it was originally pitched, I guarantee it. I mean, part of my bitterness...and also my [i]passion[/i]...over Spore is the unrealized promise of the original game. I choose the word "passion" deliberately; I can still give myself goosebumps thinking about the potential and promise of what we saw in that 2005 demo, and [i]I still want to PLAY that game![/i]

If I send no other message to Will Wright, if I can encourage other people to send any message at all to Will Wright, it's that his original vision is still alive in us, that the Cute team's coup can be only a temporary victory if he'll let it be, if he'll fight for what he originally believed in. This poll shows that there is strong support for this message, support which only continues to grow; the divide between Yes and No votes grows wider each day, with Yes in a definitive lead.
Will Wright, Maxis, EA...hear our impassioned plea: [i]Make Science Spore a reality.[/i] We will make you kings for it, I swear; don't let us down.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

[quote] As the main complainer and the champion of "I want science spore" [/quote]

I take exception to this statement.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=ghadis][quote] As the main complainer and the champion of "I want science spore" [/quote]

I take exception to this statement.[/quote]

It's not really important.

I mean, yeah, it's entirely possible that I and others are neck-and-neck for demagoguery with regards to Science Spore, or it may be that one of us is the front-runner. But it really doesn't matter because we're all on the same side. I will be [i]HAPPY[/i] to be the lowliest prole on the totem pole if Science Spore gets made, frankly.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Thats not important.

Its important to keep the isseu hot and current.

Thats all.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

No, I kid.

I am just glad, and rather surprised, that there are people who feel the same way I do about it.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

I've been advocating Science Spore for a while. I even bought a domain and opened a forum for the purpose of sharing ideas or starting a project for science spore. RG I do believe is the embodiment of the movement, but there are many of us, and every day there seems to be someone new wanting Science over Fluffy bunnies.

Science is the only way to teach people. When it was talked of as a learning game, I was all over it. When it became less than a game of tetris... I was flabbergasted.

Technology is Might, Science is Power. Fluff? Do Not Want.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=ghadis]No, I kid.

I am just glad, and rather surprised, that there are people who feel the same way I do about it.[/quote]

You would be suprised to see how many of us feel this way.
[i][b]We are only being told to be the minorety.
[/b]
[/i]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=ghadis]
I am just glad, and rather surprised, that there are people who feel the same way I do about it.[/quote]

I. too, am glad. I'm not surprised, however; what surprises me is the number of people--thankfully smallish--who seem to not merely [i]like,[/i] but actively support the dumbed-down cutesy version of Spore. That frankly [i]boggles my mind.[/i]

[quote]RG I do believe is the embodiment of the movement, but there are many of us[/quote]

*blush*
Not a position I sought, but if I have either power of influence, I swear I'll use it for good instead of evil.

[quote]Science is the only way to teach people. When it was talked of as a learning game, I was all over it. When it became less than a game of tetris... I was flabbergasted.

Technology is Might, Science is Power. Fluff? Do Not Want. [/quote]

Yes. [i]Yes![/i]

When Spore was talked about by Will Wright as a game which taught principles of the universe through gameplay, I was [i]inspired;[/i] it is precisely that which made me want to have this game! And it's that which the so-called Cute team [i]removed![/i]

Well, rather than ask, "Whatinhell were they [i]thinking?[/i]", we must see that it's over and done with; the question [i]now[/i] is, "What can we do about it?"
This thread, and my participation in it, is about raising consciousness to these issues, showing Maxis and Will Wright that Science Spore has a strong base of support out there, that we're willing to give them another chance, and trying to get Spore made after all.

Will Wright, you've read the board before, and you've responded once. I think--I [i]believe[/i]--that you still have passion for Science Spore, that you lament the Cute team's victory. If I'm right, know that you have our support if you choose to pursue Spore's original path. Please...if I'm right, please don't give up on us, or on yourself.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

You and the others may complain about the post but I stand by it... If you don't know what a game is like why buy it ? If they can continue getting money in from people who are of the opinion "this expansion may make it better" they will have no reason to make science spore. I'm not attacking anybody just a statement of fact with a good example.

[quote]I swear to god there was a post here by Numerator confirming she had in fact been very excited about the game, and made over 500 creations before it came out. [/quote]

Agreed and it was through forums and feedback that an opinion that spore wasn't going to achieve what a lot of people wanted. Take the example that some people passionately argued that "realistic" creatures weren't being catered for, that placement didn't seem to matter... see where we going here... True Maxis didn't say it but it was there...

Ghadis... Sorry she has been more vocal for longer.

[quote]But you know who I WASN'T told by? Maxis or EA[/quote]
If you buy a demo for something and don't like it you don't buy it. The CC was a demo of capabilities and even here you complained about the lack of realism. Surely that would ring some alarm bells...

[quote]You've abandoned reason in favor of shouting, Stewie Griffin-like, "Victory is mine!!!",[/quote]

Never once have a shouted or thrown any abuse. Just because you don't like what I say...

[quote]
- Your pre-release postion was as much uninformed opinion as mine
- You do not have extra-sensory, precognitive powers
- The advertising and demoing of Spore had been misleading AT BEST prior to release
- Your attempt at a gotcha-style, "I told you so!" now smacks of self-fellation and is unbecoming
- Your argument distracts from the main point of this thread, namely the desire for Science Spore and lobbying for its eventual creation and release
[/quote]

1) Yes based on an actual demo.
2) True.. I just actually see and acknowledge what is before me. If I'm not sure of something I don't go out and buy it without finding out more.
3) Agreed but it was still obvious it wouldn't match all your expections
4) No I'm simply making an observation.. It's not a gotcha, it is a line of reasoning ... why Spore science will not be made by Maxis and EA. If you take it personally that's not my problem. You are someone I can use as an example as you have been vocal before and after the game came out.
5) I am entirely on topic. With a constant income stream Maxis/EA would never need to make Science Spore. I am not attacking the fact that some people want Science Spore I'm making a point on economics.

[quote]The idea, honestly, is to ignore people like EekTheCat (*snork*)[/quote]
So once again you resort to ridiculing and trying to belittle someone whose opinion doesn't always match yours... We're not worthy... Tough.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]You and the others may complain about the post but I stand by it... If you don't know what a game is like why buy it ?
[/quote]

After years of videos and articles, hype and anticipation, hopes and fears, do you [i]REALLY[/i] expect people to adopt wait-and-see positions? Seriously?

[quote]
If they can continue getting money in from people who are of the opinion "this expansion may make it better" they will have no reason to make science spore.
[/quote]

I'd say the evidence is showing that people who bought Spore and didn't care for it are adopting won't-get-fooled-again stances; Maxis may find their expansion packs a relatively hard sell, I think they'll be surprised by their lack of sales. They shouldn't be surprised after reading these boards, but...they're trying anyway.

[quote]
I'm not attacking anybody just a statement of fact with a good example.
[/quote]

Oh, I'm sure you [i]think[/i] that's what you're doing; but you're being told by multiple people that you're wrong. And if your position is truly one you believe, then in [i]THIS[/i] situation, perhaps you ought to be bowing to public opinion, hmmm? After all, that's what you expected of [i]US[/i] with regards to Spore.

I'm just sayin'...hypocrite much?

[quote]
If you buy a demo for something and don't like it you don't buy it. The CC was a demo of capabilities and even here you complained about the lack of realism. Surely that would ring some alarm bells...
[/quote]

No; sorry, but the aesthetics of creature creation [i]DO NOT BEAR[/i] upon the features of actual gameplay. It was unclear how the creatures we built would function in the world, function in the final game. It was even unclear how complete the CC was, given that wings didn't flap, for example, and other things like it.
The evidence of the CC was thoroughly inconclusive, despite your constant ranting about how obvious it should have been; for anybody who respects evidence and does not take things for granted, there was no reason to extrapolate from the CC to the final game.

I'm sorry, but this is the last time I will acknowledge your, "You should have known," argument; my opinion--and the majority opinion--is that your argument is disingenuous, and if you can't see it and insist upon harping it over and over, you're simply a troll, and I don't feed trolls. Good day.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

[quote]what surprises me is the number of people--thankfully smallish--who seem to not merely like, but actively support the dumbed-down cutesy version of Spore. That frankly boggles my mind. [/quote]
Yes, it's much more fascinating to watch and wonder about than the game itself.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

[quote]I'm sorry, but this is the last time I will acknowledge your, "You should have known," argument; my opinion--and the majority opinion--is that your argument is disingenuous, and if you can't see it and insist upon harping it over and over, you're simply a troll, and I don't feed trolls. Good day. [/quote]

As you know very well, Maxis spent millions of dollars on an extremely deceptive marketing campaign to create the appearance that there was more gameplay depth than there actually is.

Don't let the door hit you.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ickabod — GMT

You inspired me to update my sig.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

[quote=Ickabod]You inspired me to update my sig.[/quote]

OK why not Cute when Cute + Science + Gameplay could still be an excellent game. People focus on Cute.. they focus on Science and they argue gameplay in whatever camp they are in. [b]Cute does not exclude Science[/b] and I will keep repeating this. Science does not exclude Cute because at the end of the day this is a GAME. Gameplay should be first and foremost because Spore isn't and was never a true simulation, after all if I want to look at a single cell creature I'll dig out my old microscope. It was supposed to introduce people to the idea of science and some of the theories, rules whatever you want to call it. Gameplay should have been the primary thing. Once gameplay was fixed, the look and feel was important, not just as the game but for marketing and everyone should agree cute sells. Scientific ideas never had to be sacrificed to do that. Science if anything is sacrificed for gameplay. but should this really prevent some basic introduction to scientific ideas. The idea is to introduce scientific theories while making that introduction to as large an audience as possible. Even the people who created the game "Creatures" agree that it resulted in poor sales as is was too science orientated. A balance needs to reached.

Did the current version of spore get it right... probably not, the gameplay is shallow.. Is it enjoyable.. for a lot of people yes. How many of you still play the game/use editors despite voting and arguing you want science spore ? I know a few already both who still play and those who have "left". This is my problem. People argue they want science spore when in reality they don't. They want the 2005 video spore which they were "promised". People say they won't buy expansions or the part pack but in truth they are probably more likely to buy it than I am. I enjoy spore as is, I admit it openly but if I can see flaws in arguments such as those people still playing who still argue for science spore what are the chances Maxis/EA have far better numbers to base their business decisions on ?

[quote]but you're being told by multiple people that you're wrong[/quote]
Anyone who *gasp* is [i]seen[/i] to be arguing in defence of maxis is always wrong on a topic like this.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]
OK why not Cute when Cute + Science + Gameplay could still be an excellent game. People focus on Cute.. they focus on Science and they argue gameplay in whatever camp they are in. [b]Cute does not exclude Science[/b] and I will keep repeating this.
[/quote]

Clearly this is not true at Maxis. Exhibit A: [i]Spore.[/i]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Didzo — GMT

Clearification on what I want from Science Spore:
I want gameplay that is more scientifically accurate, realistic, and detailed. However, I do not want a game that is so close to reality that it becomes less of a game and more of a true-to-life simulator.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Didzo]Clearification on what I want from Science Spore:
I want gameplay that is more scientifically accurate, realistic, and detailed. However, I do not want a game that is so close to reality that it becomes less of a game and more of a true-to-life simulator.[/quote]

I think that's a very, very fine line to walk. But I also think that what we saw in the 2005 demo followed it pretty well.

Gameplay should be informed by scientific principles, and those principles should be relevant to gameplay, but they should not necessarily be the primary focus unless the play chooses to make them so.
And, in fact, that's really the point of a sandbox game, isn't it? The player should be given enough options so that whatever it is that they choose to focus on is possible, can become part of gameplay.
This is lamentably not true of Cute Spore; there are many things which I would like to focus one which are just simply not covered in this game, primary amongst those is science in both the evolution and terraforming aspects of Spore.
Terraforming, for example, is simply a matter of filling in the checklist items of atmosphere, temperature, flora and fauna, with absolutely no balancing required between, say, the oxygen production and nutritional value of the plants, the fitness of the fauna, for example. The ecosystems are not dynamic or emergent; the player cannot observe what effect, say, wiping out a herd of animals might to do those which prey upon them or the plant life upon which they fed, or planting larger flora near smaller and finding the sunlight being cut off for the latter, resulting in climate and dietary changes, etc. This is what one would expect from a game that claims to have emergent gameplay, yet Spore lacks this in anything but the extremely rudimentary forms and in such small amounts that its existence can be all but discounted.

Yet it's that level of scientific play which attracts me to a game like Spore, a game with the promise Spore seemed to have when first I encountered its demos. Why the so-called Cute Team thought this would be dull or boring is beyond me; I used to refer to Spore as "the game I was born to play," until the Cute Team staged their coup.

I say again, Maxis...[i]make Science Spore.[/i] The Cute Team was wrong; there [i]IS[/i] a market for it, and by all indications, it's a fairly large one.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]
I say again, Maxis...[i]make Science Spore.[/i] The Cute Team was wrong; there [i]IS[/i] a market for it, and by all indications, it's a fairly large one.[/quote]

More accurately, there are a large number of dissatisfied customers. The reasons for their dissatisfaction are myriad. The predominant one is Securom, a (I'll be generous here) fraction totalling 1% desire "science spore".

Please Mr. E.A. with your $3.67Billion income in '08 and 27 cross-platform games with an excess of 1 million copies each sold...do as I say or I and my 300 ish friends will never buy another of your games.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

Spanky, here, is trying to discount the idea that this poll represents a microcosm of all Spore users. That's his prerogative, of course, But it doesn't exactly make what any reasonable person would call sense...even with a reasonable margin for error, well over 50% of the people are dissatisfied with Spore as it stands, and that should be a big honkin' red flag over at EA/Maxis.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

Then I guess I should discount all polls, since, they're all just a sampling.

ghadis — GMT

Very often, in public debates and forum discussions, I notice that the battle lines are drawn between one group of very intelligent people and another group of people who can't write a coherent sentence, can't use punctuation, think that "their" and "there" are the same word, and think that using apostrophes is somehow unpatriotic.

Usually, the second group wins.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

Ok lets take this outside the box once again, even to the seed article which everyone quotes as the cute vs science proof..

"...This challenge — of making hard science approachable — is one that similarly inspired games have faced since the earliest implementations in 1970 of John Conway's genre-defining Game of Life, but not all designers found Spore's compromises necessary. Steve Grand, who made the big sim-life hit of the 1990s, Creatures, also faced the task of reconciling the limited behavioral range of virtual life-forms with the advanced expectations of players. "There are two ways to tackle this problem," Grand says. "Try to make the behavior look more real, or stop lying to people. As far as I can tell, Spore takes the former approach, to gently and quite openly fool the user into thinking she's engaging with real living things, while Creatures took the latter — I did my best not to fool anyone, even if that meant the results weren't so playable..."

It's the last sentance that has me worried about any remake.. I want a game which is playable which, despite all the rhetoric the current Spore is. At the end of the day playable games sell. Pure science games don't. Balance has to be reached. Sim City was interesting for a while because of gameplay, not the science behind it.

And examples of Firefly, Battlestar Galactica don't work in this context. Sure Firefly made a film (Serenity) but discontinued the franchise (bear in mind noone had heard of series firefly in europe until after it was cancelled so it's a completely different selling model anyway). Battlestar Galactica has been popular too in some circles but then again it wasn't competing directly against another incarnation of itself. Going on to games... if you look at campaigns to continue/create things such as the Babylon5 Space game (Sierra I think), they cancelled it despite loads of protests. (Open source version is available though) as they didn't think flight sims would sell well enough.

[b]IF[/b] spore as a franchise fails due to expansions not selling, then I could understand your arguments and a would expect a groundswell to make science spore, although as previously stated they are likely to drop the whole thing and do something totally different. If it's not broken (read they are still getting money) then they aren't going to drop it. True they may take notice and you'll get your wish in spore II but this development idea will be from feedback from those people who have supported the franchise up until they decide it is time for a refresh. This will be long after this thread has been forgotten.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

Lets give you another example.. Outside of SIM anything where something failed dramatically due to science vs gameplay. Many of those of us old enough still remember Elite. I even occasionaly a flash version. Elite 2 introduced Newtonian physics as a flight model. The result. People couldn't play it and it bombed.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Hellgaze — GMT

Too ambishious, game developers would cry themselves to sleep.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Gritmonger — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]...

It's the last sentance that has me worried about any remake.. I want a game which is playable which, despite all the rhetoric the current Spore is. At the end of the day playable games sell. Pure science games don't. Balance has to be reached. Sim City was interesting for a while because of gameplay, not the science behind it.[/quote]

Spore, as it is, is playable, but boring. Playable like tic-tac-toe. Playable like Solitaire. I have to be really really bored to want to play it.

SimCity was interesting because it turned a theory into a plastic ruleset that you could play with. Science, despite what people might think, is all around you right now! Don't look - it will eat you!

Seriously, rules are background elements. The concept behind SimCity, SimLife, the Sims, and so on is a relatively simple and [i]relatively unbounded[/i] ruleset, with very few hard limits. It turns out the ruleset for realistic creatures can be very simple to manipulate while being complex in the background. Just because science is there doesn't mean you have to think about it: the point of a game is to experiment and play around with trying to get what you want by trying everything.

What if educating young was a mission? Would it make a difference if you abandoned your nest shortly after you laid eggs, or taught your babies some behaviors? What if you could establish a territory? Would it make your young safer, or would it keep them from learning about other creatures? Which would be better? What if other creatures from your group keyed off of your creature's reactions?

A lot of this could be added without telling you, and you would only "notice" if you played around. Yet, oddly enough, these are "sciency" additions.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Gritmonger — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]Lets give you another example.. Outside of SIM anything where something failed dramatically due to science vs gameplay. Many of those of us old enough still remember Elite. I even occasionaly a flash version. Elite 2 introduced Newtonian physics as a flight model. The result. People couldn't play it and it bombed.[/quote]
Elite 2 was incredible. It packed a gigantic galaxy of hundreds of thousands of stars and gameplay in a 3-d modeled world into 650Kb. That's right - 650 Kb.

It might have bombed because people expected Star Wars physics, and combat was basically you as a turret hoping your shots hit before theirs...

As it is, Star Control II uses a mostly Newtonian physics model (in 2-D) yet its space combat is one of the most enjoyable I can remember...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Ach , who are you kidding.
There is proof that the walking outside of your UFO was a feature. They have cut it only to reintroduce it with the first expansion.

Thats real solid proof.

There is a lot more proof, its just that some of you are just not willing to accept it for reasons unknown to us.

I think most of you nay sayers are falling over the term science Spore.
I already told you its an unlucky chosen name on this forum.
All we want is the game that was shown to us.

A game that mimics evolution in the sense that size and shape had real emergent gameplay. A bit similar to how the current cell phase works.

A game that allowed you to shape the behaviour of your species by playing it. That continued into the tribal phase.
What do you think the campfire was used for ? It was an intelligence construction tool. No, the card system we have now is silly. If you can't see that for yourself I am not going to try and explain it again.

All of this combined into the space phase.

Don't fall over semantics and silly little arguements.
From 2005 until mid 2008 this was still the game they were promoting.
Look at the prototypes for crying out loud.

Can you blame the fans - the original target group - that we feel duped into buying a game that they decided to strip for reasons unknown to us. I don't care about the cute vs science articles. I only care about what was shown,promised and promoted. Thats what this discusion is about, not about some physics model.
And how that determined the succes of the game. I just visited my store, they can't get their Spore copies sold.
I wonder why that is.
I do know that a physics model has nothing to do with it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Netheren — GMT

I vote yes. I bought Spore, expecting some quick fun and I barely got that. It must have been bad for the people who actually expected something more.
Let me use the opportunity to also say how much I hate the autoshare feature. Truly, my few creations are horrible because I just tried to get through the game the first time and they were obviously uploaded. I just wanted to check out the game first and put a few pieces together to get it done.
Oh well. Maybe I will have to try and do better to make up for the few ugly ones I have now.
------------------------------------------------
I'll reply first to Eekwotsthat and I know you said bear with me (on the sexist thing), but I'm not good at that and I will just start on it to make a point. (For others, skip to the next ---- if you only want my opinion on the topic at hand).
First off, I'm a girl. Grew up with quite a few games, though unfortunately, I missed many of the classics.
I don't like FPSs (yeah, 1 point to you), but that's only because I don't like fighting with guns that much (MGS4, Uncharted, Mass Effect and soon Fallout 3 is the closest I come). Ripping up someones stomach with a sword or cutting their throath with a knife is something else though.
I grew up with violent games and movies, playing and watching them with family members, my mom included (though just the movie part for her).

Many of my "girlfriends" (hmm, not a native english speaker so does anyone know another word that doesn't make me sound like a polygamous lesbian? ) are the same. (Edit: got afraid my little question sounded negative. Just to clarify, few are more supportive of different sexual orientations than I. )
Laughing at horror movies and the like, and (gasp) playing games that are more violent than the Sims and Spore.
Maybe there's something strange about where I grew up though, cause I do remember that girls in my children school tended to play medieval warfare with the boys between classes instad of playing with dolls.
Point is, everyone is an individual. I bet there is a lot of boys enjoying Spore, and a lot of girls bored to death by it.

The funny thing is that Spore is actually quite violent. You destroy entire civilizations and the impact of that isn't lessened by the lack of blood or screams. Actually, one might think it gives children less appreciation for life when they don't see the consequences.
I can imagine a kid playing their game and calling their mom over to show her the planet they are going to blow up.
And the mom will smile and brush the kids hair until she sees the giant phallus walking around, at which point she will tear the child away from the screen.
I don't think I'm the only one seeing something wrong with this picture.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might ask what this has to do with science. My point is that there is little reason to keep science from the game to protect the kids, market to casual gamers or whatever.
Adults aren't the only ones who want quality. Kids can be quite picky too. I don't think you child would get traumatized from watching creatures behave more naturally, which also involves true hunting and mating.
I don't think anyone, children or otherwise would have suffered from a somewhat deeper gameplay with proper consequences for you evolutionary choices.

As people have mentioned in this and other threads; Science Spore isn't about having 10 pages worh of pop ups explaining scientific hypotheses, nor is it about having a simulator where you spend a month of real time (equalling a huge span of millenias in game) to get past the cell stage.
It's about a game that treats the player as an intelligent human being (which there probably are depressingly few of but my argument still stands).
And remember that I'm talking about gameplay here. The editors are great, and for all my ranting I still smile at some of the cute (yes, you read right) creatures that are made. But is it wrong for people to expect a game to come with all the fluff of the editors?

Too much text now, so I'm gonna end it. A little off-topic perhaps, but I wanted to point out a few things at once. I still had fun with the game the short time I played it and I might play it some more. but I have other games to play. If Spore had just been deeper, less repetetive and yes, more science-like, then I would probably still play it.
Just some of the suggestions on this forum would make the game great if implemented well, but I'm to cynical to believe that EA or Maxis listens to those suggestions. Well, it's fun to think about though.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

What, nobody liked Biodome? It was an awesome movie that corrupted my young innocent mind - and it actually got me thinking about biology when I was younger right before I went off into HighSchool and all that nice stuff.

It eventually led me here. And is why I was, for a time, attracted to spore (until the day I actually got it).

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Biodome was good, no worries.

Viva los Biodome

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Schlippo — GMT

Should the company that gave us cubed planets make a science game?

At this point, I don't trust them to.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Worldbreaker276 — GMT

Of course, that would be the first step in me ever buying another EA product again...and that includes WAR (EA has its logo somwhere in it, so I'm sticking with WoW).

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Schlippo]Should the company that gave us cubed planets make a science game?

At this point, I don't trust them to.[/quote]

They have made the game.
Enough GDC's and TED's to proove that.

They just stripped it. *shrug*

Yea warhammer is from EA/Mythic.
Its the reason why i canceled my sub.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

You know, how they ripped the campfire to nothing but a Mexican dance(to my knowledge)? Why not Safety Dance if you have a hat? Or randomized.

Or heck, make it worth something in the evolution...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Jackuul]You know, how they ripped the campfire to nothing but a Mexican dance(to my knowledge)? Why not Safety Dance if you have a hat? Or randomized.

Or heck, make it worth something in the evolution... [/quote]

I just mentioned that on the previous page.
I lack the words to describe the sadness I feel about the campfire as it is now.

It was supposed to add on the behaviour and intellegence.
A behavioural catalyst.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

The least we could have is the Safety Dance done Bio-Dome style with a random midget of your creature in the mix...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

HAHAHAHA.

Man i totally forgat about the safety dance !

Must look for the movie, I have it somewhere .....

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Gritmonger]
Elite 2 was incredible. It packed a gigantic galaxy of hundreds of thousands of stars and gameplay in a 3-d modeled world into 650Kb. That's right - 650 Kb.

It might have bombed because people expected Star Wars physics, and combat was basically you as a turret hoping your shots hit before theirs...[/quote]

Well, that, and just getting to a planet was an exercise in frustration; Elite was [i]TOO[/i] realistic.

Nobody is asking for [i]THAT[/i] much realism out of Spore; even the 2005 demo was mildly stylized. The point is to have the scientific [i]concepts[/i] be the backbone of Spore, which right now they are not.

[quote]
As it is, Star Control II uses a mostly Newtonian physics model (in 2-D) yet its space combat is one of the most enjoyable I can remember... [/quote]

Oh, gawds...StarControl 2 was [i]AWESOME.[/i] One of the best space games [i]ever.[/i]

[quote]Many of my "girlfriends" (hmm, not a native english speaker so does anyone know another word that doesn't make me sound like a polygamous lesbian? ) are the same. [/quote]

It's ambiguous. Prior to homosexual rights becoming essentially mainstream, "girlfriends" was a platonic term a girl used for her friends. [i]Now,[/i] however...well, I [i]AM[/i] a lesbian, and I call the girls I date my girlfriends, so...

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

So we are generally in consensus...

1) science should be in Spore.
2) Too much science is bad..
3) Cute and Science are not mutually exclusive
4) Gameplay is important.

..so we come back to the real world and how to get science back into spore...

Remake Spore... Not a chance. Even if the Spore franchise fails as a lot of people appear to think it will/already has, Maxis/EA wouldn't rehash it immediately. They'd go and do something else and potentially come back at another time when spore is not in everybodies mind. It's not a winnable solution for science spore. Making constructive criticism and providing concrete examples of how they can improve the science in spore whilst not alienated those people who enjoy what they currently have is the way to go.

Edit: Look at Cube planets... A lot are saying Noooo... but others are saying great. To change things you normally have to work inside a system and there is a need to cater for both... Hard science spore would need to add something as a "fun" replacment before slowly phasing out cube planets.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

Anyone notice two new Admins? Both from EA_ ?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]*snip*[/quote]

Look Eek, I respect what you are trying to do here.

But there is no way around the fact that they have cut so much that this game hardly is Spore anymore.
I don't think that they can put anything of what we want back into the game.
Maybe they haven't duped you. But they have duped me. And its taking a lot of my postive nature not to become bitte about it.

Unless I am wrong.
Please tell me I am wrong.
I just want my creatures to behave uniqeu. As promised.
I want my creatures to have a sense of realism , realism being that they make sense. They kept it for the cell phase sorta...
Hell, stat stacking would be a start....

Aw:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

VariusMayhem — GMT

Oh! Another thing! Remember W.W. going on land after he get through aqua stage? The creature stage got oversimplified! And I mean it in a scientific way! In his presentation with the green tripod there were little creatures all over the place. Todays version of creature stage is completely different! All the other species sick together in a pack forever! No lonely wolfs... Only a hand full of them leaves the nest very rarely. And what happened to dragging prey or procedual mating? It's simply nature! What Spore is today is just Pokemon with spaceships and planetbusters. Needs of citizens? Except for pleasure non-existent! There is no I underline this for you, developers... [i][b][u][size=20][color=darkred]NO[/color][/size][/u][/b][/i] micromanagment for city needs except spice production/money generation and pleasure. Thats all! No more! Nada! Niente! Zero! Nothing! Nix mehr!

The game introduced to us wasway better than the endproduct.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Sharifal — GMT

if they do end up making another one, I recommend one thing, dont put a limit on how many times i can install the game. just have me jump through hoops online so you know I own the game and not treat me like a pirate.

I dont like it, plus i dont have the clothes for it and I would look close to my create so dont make me go to that step.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]
Remake Spore... Not a chance. Even if the Spore franchise fails as a lot of people appear to think it will/already has, Maxis/EA wouldn't rehash it immediately. They'd go and do something else and potentially come back at another time when spore is not in everybodies mind. It's not a winnable solution for science spore. Making constructive criticism and providing concrete examples of how they can improve the science in spore whilst not alienated those people who enjoy what they currently have is the way to go.[/quote]

That's some fairly traditional strategy...and yet, I can't recall it ever being challenged, ever being flouted; the success of saying, "Oops!" and trying again [i]right away[/i] has never been tested.
It [i]MAY[/i] turn out to be a winning strategy. The logic behind that? Getting users to say, "Wow...they're listening. They care. We can make a difference," is an awfully promising way to [i]cement loyalty.[/i] Conversely, making us feel as if our input is ignorable and doesn't matter, and leaving us feeling screwed over and abandoned...great way to alienate your base.

So claiming, as you have, that making Science Spore [i]NOW[/i] "isn't a winnable solution" is simply making an assertion without evidence to back it up. And the fact is that leaving it to fester is actually probably [i]worse[/i] than an immediate [i]mea culpa[/i] and re-vamping.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ArthurBonjour — GMT

Hey I would buy it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=ArthurBonjour]Hey I would buy it.

[/quote]

So would a [i]LOT[/i] of people; even allowing for a pessimistic margin of error, this poll shows that there's a fairly large market for it.

I seriously wish we could get official word from Maxis on this issue [i]FINALLY,[/i] isn't of being roundly ignored; they're seriously shooting themselves in the foot with this protracted silence.

I mean, seriously...even a diplomatic, "We're sorry; Spore is what it is and we're committed to it. We simply cannot take the risk that is involved in redoing it. Some of us here feel your pain, but that's the bottom line," would be fine, just so long as the matter is [i]settled.[/i]
Of [i]COURSE[/i] I would prefer to hear, "Your enthusiasm and the support the community has shown inspires us; we're glad you still believe in the ideas behind Spore, and we believe the project will make money. We're on it; give us a year or two," but even rejection is better than this continued silence.

You listening, there, Maxis?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

draknfyr — GMT

Yes, on the condition that it doesnt use the current (or any new) invasive DRM.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

RG, I suspect we'll hear something soon.

Risk was the issue here. They risked too little and lost as a result.

You could even say they're doing the Safety Dance:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcOZ6xFxJqg[/youtube]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=ghadis]RG, I suspect we'll hear something soon.[/quote]

What makes you say that? Have you heard something? Because I'm quite pessimistic on this issue; I think they're deliberately ignoring us, hoping we'll go away. Or at least don't want to give us more to complain about...though I stand by my promise; if official word comes down from Maxis/EA that Science Spore is dead and buried forever and for all time, I'm outta here. Probably gladly on both sides.

[quote]
Risk was the issue here. They risked too little and lost as a result.

You could even say they're doing the Safety Dance[/quote]

And yet, Pop Goes the World
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjIrrL8gaNQ[/youtube]

(I should probably mention just how much I [i]ADORE[/i] Men Without Hats...)

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RedLightning777 — GMT

[quote=ghadis]Very often, in public debates and forum discussions, I notice that the battle lines are drawn between one group of very intelligent people and another group of people who can't write a coherent sentence, can't use punctuation, think that "their" and "there" are the same word, and think that using apostrophes is somehow unpatriotic.

Usually, the second group wins.[/quote]

Now that is the truth. I've noticed that too. Though this game originally drew quite a bit of this "intelligent" crowd, and quite a bit of the extreme you pointed out were drawn after the switch into the cute, non scientific approach was secretly added on release.

Hope you are doing well. Would you be bale to pm me as to how to post pictures of my creatures on here ? I've yet to figure out where people are getting all these images in their posts. That would be greatly appreciated, this information will allow me to post a few of my older creations that I've made with the Creature Creator... and allow me to interact with the "other side" of these forums. Here's to hoping that I can at least gain the incentive and the courage to show off my somewhat creative side. I say that because I've seen some AMAZING things that I wouldnt even have dreamed of making. There's quite a bit of fantastic work out there. Too bad really that the game ended up so shallow. I'm a gamer, and that's why its been so disappointing. If I had in fact wanted to just create, I would have invested the money in a 3d package, not a game.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

I wish they would come out with a 3D exporter so that I could use Spore as a modeler and render the critters in Maya.

as for how to display critters, I don't really know

Rocketgirl: I don't know for sure, I just think they are going to address the issue shortly. The Space expansion and associated press release seemed to be a bit of an admission that they know about the problems.

I'm not holding my breath however.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=ghadis]I wish they would come out with a 3D exporter so that I could use Spore as a modeler and render the critters in Maya.[/quote]

I...thought they had. I heard a rumor.

I'm a 3DS MAXer, and I'm proud to be a [i]PAID[/i] MAXer (despite the fact that my copy of MAX is [i]WAY[/i] out of date) as opposed to a pirate, so a Maya exporter would do me no good, anyway. A MAX exporter probably wouldn't do me any good; my version of MAX is too old.

Besides, I can make better aliens (and even humans!) with MAX on my own; who needs to export from the CC?

[quote]
Rocketgirl: I don't know for sure, I just think they are going to address the issue shortly. The Space expansion and associated press release seemed to be a bit of an admission that they know about the problems.
[/quote]

Wait...which associated press release? I hadn't heard; can you link me?

[quote]
I'm not holding my breath however.[/quote]

Yeah, me neither...we've heard from Maxis officially exactly [i]ONCE,[/i] and it was when WW intervened in the religion-in-Spore issue, and that was ages ago. If they react specifically to the Science Spore issue, I'll be deeply surprised.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinorAnnoyance — GMT

I've thought about this too although I was calling it "Advanced Spore" in my head (like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons). I'd buy that. Doesn't sound like something that they'd do although stranger things have happened.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Visko — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Eekwotsthat]
Remake Spore... Not a chance. Even if the Spore franchise fails as a lot of people appear to think it will/already has, Maxis/EA wouldn't rehash it immediately. They'd go and do something else and potentially come back at another time when spore is not in everybodies mind. It's not a winnable solution for science spore. Making constructive criticism and providing concrete examples of how they can improve the science in spore whilst not alienated those people who enjoy what they currently have is the way to go.[/quote]

That's some fairly traditional strategy...and yet, I can't recall it ever being challenged, ever being flouted; the success of saying, "Oops!" and trying again [i]right away[/i] has never been tested.
It [i]MAY[/i] turn out to be a winning strategy. The logic behind that? Getting users to say, "Wow...they're listening. They care. We can make a difference," is an awfully promising way to [i]cement loyalty.[/i] Conversely, making us feel as if our input is ignorable and doesn't matter, and leaving us feeling screwed over and abandoned...great way to alienate your base.

So claiming, as you have, that making Science Spore [i]NOW[/i] "isn't a winnable solution" is simply making an assertion without evidence to back it up. And the fact is that leaving it to fester is actually probably [i]worse[/i] than an immediate [i]mea culpa[/i] and re-vamping. [/quote]

I <3 you. Oh yeah, and P.S. I'm actually impressed by the turnout in this poll so far..

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=MinorAnnoyance]I've thought about this too although I was calling it "Advanced Spore" in my head (like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons). I'd buy that. Doesn't sound like something that they'd do although stranger things have happened.[/quote]

That's not a bad name, but we called it "Science Spore" because of the schism at Maxis between what they called the Science Team and the Cute Team; it seemed a natural choice.
I know it be be a minor disappointment to have called something a certain name in your head and then discover that the rest of the world has run with something different, so...my sympathies. Heh.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

[b][color=red]You think we care -300
You Complain about Spore -200
You like science not cute -200
You are questioning DRM -200
You want us to listen -100
We Dislike Customers -100[/color][/b]
[color=green][b]You paid for the game +15
You were not a pirate +15
You let us treat you like criminals +15[/b][/color]

Total -1055

We are at War with Consumers.

EA: The Philosophy of Maximized Earning

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Visko]
I <3 you.[/quote]

Awww, shucks.

[quote]
Oh yeah, and P.S. I'm actually impressed by the turnout in this poll so far..[/quote]

Me too. Impressed...but not overly surprised.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Netheren — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]

[quote]Many of my "girlfriends" (hmm, not a native english speaker so does anyone know another word that doesn't make me sound like a polygamous lesbian? ) are the same. [/quote]

It's ambiguous. Prior to homosexual rights becoming essentially mainstream, "girlfriends" was a platonic term a girl used for her friends. [i]Now,[/i] however...well, I [i]AM[/i] a lesbian, and I call the girls I date my girlfriends, so...

[/quote]

Ah. thanks. I learn something every day. Though I guess I should know since I study in english and all.
Still difficult to know how all terms are used when I don't live in an english speaking country.
Always wondered about it since in my language the word for boyfriend/girlfriend is gender neutral. This may be more prejudiced though as I guess stupid people would always assume a girl are talking about a boyfriend when using the word and vica versa, but oh well. At least the word gives one the option of surprising people when they want to know more about the one you're dating.
There are two words for friend though depending on gender.

Agree with many of your posts by the way Rocketgirl, though I'm more of a lurker in here than anything else, only feeling the need to make people suffer through my walls of text now and then.

Since Schlippo mentioned it: What the heck is up with the cube planets anyway? I just read about it yesterday (I haven't downloaded any patches for the game yet at all). Is there really anyone who have cube planets on the top of their wish list for Spore?

Also agree with much of what VariusMayhem said, although I think we should be careful with references to Pokemon. After all that franchise has had enough income to buy a country and we don't want EA to think their tactics with Spore are as successful as Pokemon.
Pokemon also scares me because I've always had the need to buy Pokemon products. I've never bought anything related to Pokemon, but a part of me always wants to try it out. But I will stay away from temptation, even though I didn't manage that with Spore.

Edit: Just a few corrections.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ZsoSahaal — GMT

[quote=Netheren]Pokemon also scares me because I've always had the need to buy Pokemon products. I've never bought anything related to Pokemon, but a part of me always wants to try it out. But I will stay away from temptation, even though I didn't manage that with Spore.[/quote]

Pokemon scares me too. I was caught up in it during middle school (about 9 years ago) and had a whole bunch of cards. But eventually I got out of it. However...every single time I see a booster pack for cards or something related to them in any way in a store my brain starts whispering things to me about buying it. Get it. Get them. Catch them all. You gotta. NO!!! GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! GOTTA CATCH THEM ALL!!!! GOTTA CATCH THEM ALL!!!!! PIKACHU!!!!! YOU TEACH ME AND I'LL TEACH YOU!!!! POKEMON!!!!!!!!!

/cries in corner

They're evil. Stay away from them. Don't give in to your temptation.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cGEwFIsk0g[/youtube]

But seriously, there really is a weird lasting addiction to that franchise deep down inside years later. And it isn't because I like it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Visko — GMT

lol what Pokemon is not addicting. It's just as stupid as this now that I realize it. Back when I was a kid it seemed cool and neat and some kind of weird dream to have all these pokemon pets. And I got the cards because it was fun to collect them, then people stopped collecting them and I kinda lost interest too. The TV show which was my favorite TV show and had to watch every new episode I began losing interest in as well... Well, I was growing up so what else would you expect. Now YEARS down the line THEY'RE STILL DOING POKEMON? I'm like what the hell? These things are just retarded now a days. I mean I can see kids getting interested in them for a few years, but how can someone still be interested in it from beginning to end? I think the beginning was a lot better, and now they've totally ruined it. But either way I don't care, I hate Pokemon and have for years - I just don't understand how people can still be addicted to the games. I haven't tried anything after silver so I guess my oppinion is kind of invalid, but every freaking new version seems the same - same story, new world, same goal.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

I had a dog. Dogs > cards.

Anyways... square does not compute.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SporeMasterArti — GMT

Well, I see where everyone is coming from. But I think Spore took a lot of good turns for the better. Remember, Spore's realism aspect did fall behind we know this, but they had to appeal to more than just a certain group of gamers, and that's what they did.

I'm excited to see the expansion and booster packs for the game, and especially the one adding another sort of space phase. There's just so much to add to the game, and I think that will make those who want more out of the realistically a bit happier, because the Space pack (coming in 2009) will really add to the game I think and I'm really excited to buy it.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=SporeMasterArti]Well, I see where everyone is coming from. But I think Spore took a lot of good turns for the better. Remember, Spore's realism aspect did fall behind we know this, but they had to appeal to more than just a certain group of gamers, and that's what they did.[/quote]

No...that's what they [i]TRIED[/i] to do. And failed.

And in the process, managed to alienate those whom they had attracted in the first place with Spore's initial premise.

Not to mention completely betrayed Will Wright's [i]explicitly stated purpose[/i] for the game, namely getting people to learn about some very important aspects of our universe through engaging gameplay.

How can you in good conscience call these "a lot of good turns for the better"? Seriously?

[quote]
I'm excited to see the expansion and booster packs for the game, and especially the one adding another sort of space phase. There's just so much to add to the game, and I think that will make those who want more out of the realistically a bit happier, because the Space pack (coming in 2009) will really add to the game I think and I'm really excited to buy it.[/quote]

Is anyone [i]ELSE[/i] dizzy from all this spin?

Not to mention that what we've gotten, here, is nothing but platitudes and pretty much [i]NO[/i] specific answers. The most we've gotten here is, "I think that will make those who want more out of the realistically a bit happier," which tells us exactly [i]DIDDLY.[/i] The last time I heard something like this, it turned out to be a big fat [i]LIE[/i] to keep us hoping until it was too late.

C'mon...[i]specifics![/i] We've got legitimate and specific concerns and we need more than just vague hints that amount to little more than a 'maybe' accompanied by a lot of rah-rah cheering. I, for one, don't care for being strung along, and I think we [i]deserve[/i] something rather more specific that addresses our concerns [i]DIRECTLY,[/i] whether telling us we're getting what we want or telling us to get stuffed.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ghadis — GMT

How many of these "pro" posters are EA sockpuppets? You have to admit they share a sort of texture in a lot of their responses.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=ghadis]How many of these "pro" posters are EA sockpuppets? You have to admit they share a sort of texture in a lot of their responses.[/quote]

Well, it seems as if anybody with "Sporemaster" in their name is, by definition, a sock-puppet. Yet a lot of the more ambiguous users do seem to have a similar structure to their defense of Spore.

Sadly, none of this brings us any closer to an [i]ANSWER,[/i] and it seems to me that this probably [i]IS[/i] our answer, the only one we're likely to get. Ever.
And if that's true, then the message is actually loud and clear: "You're never getting what you want; if you were, we'd tell you. Instead, we've prevaricated, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that your concerns are falling upon deaf ears. So sorry."

If the truth is anything other than that, I'd love to hear it...but I'm not holding my breath.

[b]EDIT:[/b] Let me say this, however...it seems to me that these [i]ARE[/i] bait-and-switch tactics: hint that the players will be happy with the intention of getting them to buy the expansion out of hope. That's what this looks like, frankly.
And that may have worked in the past, but it won't work [i]HERE.[/i] The fact is, most of us are in won't-get-fooled-again mode; we've flat-out [i]STATED[/i] that we're not buying anything until Spore's deficits are quite specifically, explicitly, and positively addressed. That's just how it is; EA/Maxis, if they want our dollars, are going to have to level with us in no uncertain terms; we [i]WANT[/i] to play Spore, but we will withhold our support, [i]which pays your salaries,[/i] if we're not getting what we want out of the game. This [i]should[/i] be a compelling argument.
This reminds me of the current presidential race: people are fed up and are demanding that Something Be Done™. The Democrats have figured this out and adapted; that's why they're winning. The Republicans are clueless and are trying to conduct business as usual; that's why they're losing. Maxis, EA...[i]you're losing.[/i]
Business-as-usual isn't going to work here; you need to adopt new tactics if you want the market to go your way. Don't take this as a threat or an ultimatum, either; I [i]WANT[/i] to play Spore, but I'm not going to throw my money away on a product that [i]isn't what I want.[/i] I'm not refusing to buy Spore peripherals out of [i]spite;[/i] I'm not rich and I love the original concept behind Spore, and that's what I'm willing to spend my meager entertainment budget on.

...and I know I'm not alone.

[i]THAT'S[/i] what this is about. So level with us, tell us what we want to hear--and [i]mean[/i] it--and you'll find in us a big ol' cheering section.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

We're one vote away from 300, folks, and we're [i]still[/i] at a better than 10-to-1 ratio on those who want Science Spore versus those who don't.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

xentaur — GMT

You're at about 3-to-1 ratio on those who want Science Spore versus those who don't want or don't care. That's not considering the people who just play the game as it is and don't even care about the forum.

And you have 306 people who want the game to be completely redesigned, to the point where it would probably be easier to make a new game. 306 people, suppose they even pay 100 bucks each for Science Spore Galactic Edition. That's $30,600 total. That's just about barely enough to pay a dozen developers for a month work. Even their QA team is bigger than that (as unlikely as it may seem). And it will take them [i]at least[/i] until Spring to get [i]even the Space EP[/i] done - way more than a month.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=xentaur]You're at about 3-to-1 ratio on those who want Science Spore versus those who don't want or don't care. That's not considering the people who just play the game as it is and don't even care about the forum.

And you have 306 people who want the game to be completely redesigned, to the point where it would probably be easier to make a new game. 306 people, suppose they even pay 100 bucks each for Science Spore Galactic Edition. That's $30,600 total. That's just about barely enough to pay a dozen developers for a month work. Even their QA team is bigger than that (as unlikely as it may seem). And it will take them [i]at least[/i] until Spring to get [i]even the Space EP[/i] done - way more than a month.[/quote]

Brave attempt. But unfortunately things like logic and reason do not work in this thread. Been there, tried that.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=EdCase512][quote=xentaur]You're at about 3-to-1 ratio on those who want Science Spore versus those who don't want or don't care. That's not considering the people who just play the game as it is and don't even care about the forum.

And you have 306 people who want the game to be completely redesigned, to the point where it would probably be easier to make a new game. 306 people, suppose they even pay 100 bucks each for Science Spore Galactic Edition. That's $30,600 total. That's just about barely enough to pay a dozen developers for a month work. Even their QA team is bigger than that (as unlikely as it may seem). And it will take them [i]at least[/i] until Spring to get [i]even the Space EP[/i] done - way more than a month.[/quote]

Brave attempt. But unfortunately things like logic and reason do not work in this thread. Been there, tried that.[/quote]

No Ed, you just don't agree with the logical proof provided in this thread that we were duped.
We were conned and its not because you are happy with the game that noone else has the right to voice his or hers disagreement with what happened.

And it is not so much about redesigning the entire game.
Its about demanding an answer as to how they changed the game so radically.
I'll say it again, the first expansion proofs we were conned.
We deserve an answer.

Logic and reason has been present at all times in this thread.
Its just a shame that we have fallen into a category that appears to be 'bunk'.
I'll say it again, it doesn't mather how many times you repeat a lie. It will not become true.

And we have no intention letting them forget.
This is a civiliced thread. Updated on a daily basis showing that this is a general demand, concern.
As an integral part of this community we deserve as much attention as anyone else.
There for I keep this adressed.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Mid1oth — GMT

[quote=ghadis]It's funny, I was thinking "Spore Science" would be a great name for an expansion pack.
[/quote]

Or how about... "Spore 2: Revenge of the Nerds"

I do enjoy playing the game, but I would love to see a version of Spore that was actually more of a simulation than a dollhouse.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

[quote=Parvati]And it is not so much about redesigning the entire game.
Its about demanding an answer as to how they changed the game so radically.
I'll say it again, the first expansion proofs we were conned.
We deserve an answer.[/quote]

Title of thread disagrees.. "make science spore" isn't asking why things were changed. I would also agree about the expansion if it was going to be released in a very short amount of time like the parts pack but it's not. It's going to have to be developed. Just because they listened to the fact that people have complained about something not in the game doesn't mean that they just have to switch a piece of pre-developed piece of code on or off. Of course you may be right.. we don't know but I wouldn't simply make the assumption.

At one point there was a list of questions submitted to Maxis. All that was going on in these forums was whining and complaining and "we want" topics worthy of my daughter when she was 3. In this hostile environment I wouldn't have answered anything either. The overall feeling of these forums have improved slightly and who knows what will happen down the line. Maybe you will get answers. At least you tend to actually listen when someone is saying something which is not necessarily what they want to hear.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MartianMan — GMT

This whole "Science Spore / Create Spore" scenario is starting to look like a 'Coke / Coke Classic"(or for you Futurama fans, a "Slurm / Slurm Classic") scam. Correct me if I'm wrong Maxis. ;;?)

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Neruu — GMT

[quote=MartianMan]This whole "Science Spore / Create Spore" scenario is starting to look like a 'Coke / Coke Classic"(or for you Futurama fans, a "Slurm / Slurm Classic") scam. Correct me if I'm wrong Maxis. ;;?)[/quote]

that must explain why when I read what people write its as pointless as coke vs coke classic... due to.. its like attacking a hippo with a stick.. its pointless and stupid..

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MartianMan — GMT

[quote=Neruu][quote=MartianMan]This whole "Science Spore / Create Spore" scenario is starting to look like a 'Coke / Coke Classic"(or for you Futurama fans, a "Slurm / Slurm Classic") scam. Correct me if I'm wrong Maxis. ;;?)[/quote]

that must explain why when I read what people write its as pointless as coke vs coke classic... due to.. its like attacking a hippo with a stick.. its pointless and stupid.. [/quote]

Sarcasm?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]*snip*[/quote]

I know what the title says.
I was just trying to explain why this remains an isseu.

I don't understand why you need to keep saying that we have no right to say these things.
Not you personally perse, more like you people in a political correct way
Unless I am not understanding the motivations of the people who keep saying these things.

I have followed the development as close as anyone could.
I feel I know enough to make some assumptions.

Regardless of how the enviroment was at the time the qeustions were submitted.
We are the consumers.
If the consumers are donkey's, tough luck.
I used to be a teacher at some point. You can never ever say it is the students fault for not being able to review the material. See the analogy?

Were you around when the reports came in as to how they refered to us over at EA/Maxis headqaurters?
They called us Sporons.
Why would that be?

(Not attacking you personally Eek)

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

[quote=Parvati]This is a civilized thread. Updated on a daily basis showing that this is a general demand, concern.
As an integral part of this community we deserve as much attention as anyone else..[/quote]

I agree everyone deserves attention, no matter what their viewpoint..

Conversation is civilized if you agree with this thread... Anyone who doesn't agree..
[quote]How many of these "pro" posters are EA sockpuppets? You have to admit they share a sort of texture in a lot of their responses[/quote] and I found that without having to look too hard...

Let's not even argue that point however.. I admit that Spore which you expected doesn't exist.. Now what is a realistic way of moving torwards that goal ?

Do you really expect a rewrite from what most people are saying in this thread is a failed franchise ? The poll is pretty much one sided but do you expect people to really go out and buy another version ? Polls like this are a snapshop and a lot of bad feeling had been generated via mistakes in marketing and the DRM issue The poll values haven't actually changed for ages though in either direction despite this thread being updated. You see the same few people defending this and other threads. How many Science Spore supporters would actuallly BUY it. Some yes but not all. How many Science Spore supporters still enjoy the game.. A few.. How many boycotters will actually buy expansions... probably a few... How many people who played spore and never heard of science spore would buy another copy of only a slightly different game ? A very small minority... And that's where the problem lies. Where is the incentive for EA/Maxis to invest ?

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

No Eek.
I have said what I think.
I am not going to repeat it again.

What the hell do you want me to say about a poster that lost his temper for a second?
BTW. The EA sock puppets comment was far from rude. But if the gloves fit...its not my fault some people might take it personally.

You say the game never existed - Fine.
I have seen enough development.
I have payed more then enough plane tickets to get the rare looks at Spore we had in the past. I know my material.

I don't want to discuss this with you again.
I can only speak for myself. And I have clarified and justified my own motivations enough.

Proof has been provided.
And again, you completly ignore 'proof', logic analogy and any other thing that doesn't comply into your agenda. I am not your enemy.
To me this is still very much alive. Stop fishing me.

edit: Doing my very best to stay pollite here, but did you ever see me ask for a complete redesign?
And again, the game has been made. I am part of the original target audience.
You keep talking to me like I am some 6 year old
Don't take my kindness and neutrality on some points as weakness. Making assumptions you seem to do very well.
Do you see my post count? Yes? That says enough about how much I care about this game.
If you really want to have a talk with me. Go read up on my posts and motivations.
Now I am going to stop because for some reason you seem to have ticked me of. Because you just keep talking to me like I am a kid. Do you really think I don't know what you said, myself?

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

[quote=Parvati]And again, you completly ignore 'proof', logic analogy and any other thing that doesn't comply into your agenda[/quote]
I'm not denying that version wasn't shown.. I do deny that the final game was due to something as simple as cute vs science and will continue to do so. The most important thing to me is that we need to move forward and try to be realistic in the approach taken to get some science into the spore franchise.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat][quote=Parvati]And again, you completly ignore 'proof', logic analogy and any other thing that doesn't comply into your agenda[/quote]
I'm not denying that version wasn't shown.. I do deny that the final game was due to something as simple as cute vs science and will continue to do so. The most important thing to me is that we need to move forward and try to be realistic in the approach taken to get some science into the spore franchise.[/quote]

I have never said anything that goes against what you just said.
Actually ever since I got onboard I took any chance I had at saying this.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Moach — GMT

why is this down again?... this thread is the proof that their design decisions were bad and they have something to lose from that...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Because RG is never coming back as it seems right now.
Let it rest for a moment.

It will get bumped when a meaningful message comes up.

One of these days

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

[quote=Parvati][b]Because RG is never coming back[/b] as it seems right now.
Let it rest for a moment.

It will get bumped when a meaningful message comes up.

One of these days [/quote]

Explain!?

Aw:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Mastermind69 — GMT

I never really liked the comic style, and I never really am satisfied with it. I want realism Atleast more than it is now...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=Jackuul][quote=Parvati][b]Because RG is never coming back[/b] as it seems right now.
Let it rest for a moment.

It will get bumped when a meaningful message comes up.

One of these days [/quote]

Explain!?[/quote]

Nothing much to explain really.
I would break her confining in me by telling you all the ins and outs.
Sorry

Edit: eugh that sounds so serious. What I want to say is, if she wanted to explain it, she would have done it herself

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=Parvati][quote=Jackuul][quote=Parvati][b]Because RG is never coming back[/b] as it seems right now.
Let it rest for a moment.

It will get bumped when a meaningful message comes up.

One of these days [/quote]

Explain!?[/quote]

Nothing much to explain really.
I would break her confining in me by telling you all the ins and outs.
Sorry

Edit: eugh that sounds so serious. What I want to say is, if she wanted to explain it, she would have done it herself [/quote]

Your comment a few days ago about me liking the game . Read some of my posts elsewhere, it was always about methodology.

The fact that Rocketgirl may never come back...well honestly the topics have improved without the pelulant spamming of
"Give me what I want or I'll scweam and scweam (deliberate spelling) until I'm sick!"

This of course is simply my viewpoint.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]

Your comment a few days ago about me liking the game . [/quote]

I hope I did not offend you did I?

I know I can come of a bit strong sometimes.
And I do read your posts

I often agree even.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

EdCase512 — GMT

[quote=Parvati][quote=EdCase512]

Your comment a few days ago about me liking the game . [/quote]

I hope I did not offend you did I?

I know I can come of a bit strong sometimes.
And I do read your posts

I often agree even.[/quote]

Offend me ? Gracious no. I have never taken offense online all the back to my BBS days. I just like to keep things factual

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=EdCase512]
Offend me ? Gracious no. I have never taken offense online all the back to my BBS days. I just like to keep things factual [/quote]

Cool, I can apreciate that *nods*

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Joecoolyoyo — GMT

21 pages, geez, I don't see this thread dying anytime soon!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

JBRPG — GMT

It would be nice if it's science based spore, but it will take steps.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RedLightning777 — GMT

[quote=JBRPG]It would be nice if it's science based spore, but it will take steps.[/quote]

It should NOT take steps.. this game should have been what they promised, and even showed to us over the years..

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

vbGamer — GMT

Absolutely! That's what I was hoping for since GDC 2005. (A SimLife/SimEarth experience). Greater gameplay (ability to move back and forth between ocean/land, non-linear and non-forced evolutionary play, full planetary sandbox where you can create/place dozens of creatures on a planet, etc.). I'd love to just play on a planet as a creature and watch the sun grow a little bit larger with each "generation" (maybe 500+ animal generations = 5 billion years, for example).

The reason I ultimately didn't get SPORE, is that they did away with gameplay dynamics (physics, creature size/mobility physics... i.e., size and placement do matter), added too much cuteness, dances/singing don't seem as dynamic as I was expecting (they look more like a scripted series of limb movements), and the space stage seems more like an Interstellar Trade Wars (too crowded!) with passive planetary control (can't create/add new creatures to a planet -- only abducted ones it seems) rather than a true planetary sandbox. Plus, I really don't want to be forced to become sentient after X number of evolutions, or even forced to only be a carnivore/herbivore/omnivore for the entire stage.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

vodalok — GMT

I'd rather see such a thing released as an expansion that can be toggled between rather than a completely new game. and by that same ideal i would like to see an expansion that is purely metaphysical and mystical. you can't tell me you wouldn't play it. you know you would. otherwise games like 'wow' and 'ever quest' and the like would not survive.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

I can tell you I wouldn't play a fantasy spore - except for the fact I already am.

Science, and depth, are two things I support.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

i cant believe that maxis could be a bunch of idiots
that think that gameplay is less important than cuteness and why is no one actually talking about doing somthing
about it

The problem is that Spore has become a coloring book instead of a chemistry set javascript:emoticon('');[img]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

calculatrice — GMT

Yes, I would play a science spore. I think an expansion that allows this would suffice, as then you would be able to enjoy the cartoon-like creations and simple stages, along with the more reality-based science creators. You could also add more stages, so the game is more realistic and subtle.

~~~Calc

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

xRWiggum — GMT

I'd play Science Spore

but then again, I'm pretty content with what's out now as well

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Sensational — GMT

I really wish Spore was like the 2005 Spore it looked so much fun like dragging your kill with your creatures mouth or hands or dropping stuff in tribal stage for the simpilistic tribe members or like in the 2005 space part of spore was will wright picked up this spider looking creature and dropped it into a moon with his space ship and it exploded !It just seemed the 2005 version of spore is way better than the brightly colored spore we have now but I guess at least we have spore .

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

darwinjr — GMT

I REALLY REALLY REALLY HOPE THEY MAKE SCIENCE SPORE!!! PLEASE MAXIS!!!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

darwinjr — GMT

Bump. Everyone, bumb like crazy! We need Maxis to notice this thread!!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

darwinjr — GMT

Like so...

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

darwinjr — GMT

Bump...

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

darwinjr — GMT

Bump...

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

darwinjr — GMT

And now the grand finale...

Bump.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Xiane — GMT

They've noticed and summarily dismissed it.

1) BEcause every other post RG tends to flame the holy hell out of them utterly ruining her initial intent. Doesn't matter how intelligent you are or well written the minute you start slinging insults you are INSTANTLY dismissed. Professional or hobbiest learns this safeguard after month numero uno.

2) Everyone wants them to make an exact duplicate to the currently released game as in yesterday completely IGNORANT of how long it would take. And will constantly brow beat on the companys involved because they aren't 'instantly' bowing to your will.

3) Most of those that SPORE whiners have completely ignored some of the reasons why MAxis changed things.

4) For the love of spore let this POS thread die already, after 23 pages it has accomplished nothing except be a breeding ground for idiots. Seriously, sit back and look at yourselves DEMANDING Maxis take action when Will Wright comments in a stickied post WHY they're not bowing to the desire for science spore. READ. LEARN. COMPREHEND. And pull your heads out of your butts already.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Xiane]They've noticed and summarily dismissed it.

1) BEcause every other post RG tends to flame the holy hell out of them utterly ruining her initial intent. Doesn't matter how intelligent you are or well written the minute you start slinging insults you are INSTANTLY dismissed. Professional or hobbiest learns this safeguard after month numero uno.

2) Everyone wants them to make an exact duplicate to the currently released game as in yesterday completely IGNORANT of how long it would take. And will constantly brow beat on the companys involved because they aren't 'instantly' bowing to your will.

3) Most of those that SPORE whiners have completely ignored some of the reasons why MAxis changed things.

4) For the love of spore let this POS thread die already, after 23 pages it has accomplished nothing except be a breeding ground for idiots. Seriously, sit back and look at yourselves DEMANDING Maxis take action when Will Wright comments in a stickied post WHY they're not bowing to the desire for science spore. READ. LEARN. COMPREHEND. And pull your heads out of your butts already.[/quote]
sorry':oops

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

SporeMasterLadym — GMT

Be respectful please.

Everyone has an opinion and they are not all negative based. You cannot tell someone to get out of the forum and insult them. They have as much right to post here as you do. Relax.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

TheGuy185 — GMT

Science spore is a stupid idea. Not enough people would buy it and Maxis would lose money. It will never, ever happen. Give it up.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Davianti — GMT

Xiane & TheGuy185 those are you're beliefs not the beliefs of those that have hope of hope you are wrong. We will give up when they pry Spore from our cold dead hands.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

TheGuy185 — GMT

[quote=Davianti]Xiane & TheGuy185 those are you're beliefs not the beliefs of those that have hope of hope you are wrong. We will give up when they pry Spore from our cold dead hands.[/quote]

...What?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=TheGuy185]Science spore is a stupid idea. Not enough people would buy it and Maxis would lose money. It will never, ever happen. Give it up. [/quote]
then how 77 per cent of spore owner say they would buy it

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=SporeMasterLadym]Be respectful please.

Everyone has an opinion and they are not all negative based. You cannot tell someone to get out of the forum and insult them. They have as much right to post here as you do. Relax.

[/quote]
yea well he insulted us 1st

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

Are you 11?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

TheGuy185 — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=TheGuy185]Science spore is a stupid idea. Not enough people would buy it and Maxis would lose money. It will never, ever happen. Give it up. [/quote]
then how 77 per cent of spore owner say they would buy it[/quote]

And where did you get those statistics?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=TheGuy185][quote=piePIEpie][quote=TheGuy185]Science spore is a stupid idea. Not enough people would buy it and Maxis would lose money. It will never, ever happen. Give it up. [/quote]
then how 77 per cent of spore owner say they would buy it[/quote]

And where did you get those statistics? [/quote]

Look up.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ericDartist — GMT

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

TheGuy185 — GMT

About the poll, 379 people buying a game that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make isn't going to make Maxis any money, so I hardly consider that an arguement. And I'm sure the vast majority of people aren't going to buy spore twice. So once again, this game will never happen.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

BidMic — GMT

Please, for the love of God, lock this thread. I have never seen such immaturity in my life. I mean seriously, why are people attacking each other over a [i]game[/i]? If you do like the game, that's great, say why you like it without insulting those who hate it. If you hate the game, that's fine, say why you hate it without insulting those who like it.

Being an internet bully does [b]not[/b] make you cool in anyway.
It's actually the opposite.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Well, to throw my two cents in; I'd like the chance to play a more scientific version of Spore. Heh, as one of the few who play the game and still enjoy it the way it is, (I'm sure I'm wrong; plenty of people like Spore! Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many votes.), I'll be happy with the Space expansion pack to make missions! I love the Creepy and Cute pack, though... I guess I just love new stuff?

To stay on topic, what's left of the topic anyway, I'd love a complicated and [i][b]realistic[/b][/i] Spore and I'm one of the 77% who'd like to buy a new Spore. 'Course...I'm crazy; I play a new save just to meet the Grox each time!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Poetry — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]

Look up. [/quote]

Ok I want science spore too, but clueless statements like that won't help.

Sample set us too small.
Too many false responses.
All it proves is majority of peple who read this topic would like it.

Grade school statistics, combined with 10th grade logic (9th in some states with regents exams).

Now. here is the kicker:

Science Spore: who would pay full price for it if it came out in two years?
Would be a better question that , might get some action. Slim a chance as that may be.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Jackuul]Are you 11?[/quote]
no

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ashloc — GMT

13.5

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Ashloc]13.5[/quote]
i'm 1985721390642098746237462139165

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Poetry][quote=RocketGirl]

Look up. [/quote]

Ok I want science spore too, but clueless statements like that won't help.

Sample set us too small.
Too many false responses.
All it proves is majority of peple who read this topic would like it.

Grade school statistics, combined with 10th grade logic (9th in some states with regents exams).

Now. here is the kicker:

Science Spore: who would pay full price for it if it came out in two years?
Would be a better question that , might get some action. Slim a chance as that may be.

[/quote]
everybody i know plus 77 percent of all spore owners

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Don't_Free_Tibet — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Ashloc]13.5[/quote]
i'm 1985721390642098746237462139165[/quote]

Whoever said 11 was waaaay off. He sounds more like a 7 year old.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

TheGuy185 — GMT

[quote=Don't_Free_Tibet][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Ashloc]13.5[/quote]
i'm 1985721390642098746237462139165[/quote]

Whoever said 11 was waaaay off. He sounds more like a 7 year old. [/quote]

I concur.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Finnical — GMT

[quote=Poetry]Science Spore: who would pay full price for it if it came out in two years?
Would be a better question that , might get some action. Slim a chance as that may be.[/quote]
Spore 2?

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

Or we could try for incremental changes... you know, the little things. Baby steps[url=http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/12582.page][b]...[/b][/url]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=TheGuy185][quote=Don't_Free_Tibet][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Ashloc]13.5[/quote]
i'm 1985721390642098746237462139165[/quote]

Whoever said 11 was waaaay off. He sounds more like a 7 year old. [/quote]

I concur.[/quote]
i was being SARCASTIC

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Jackuul]Or we could try for incremental changes... you know, the little things. Baby steps[url=http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/12582.page][b]...[/b][/url][/quote]

...at $20 to $50 a step.

I expected to get the game I had been told about in a single purchase, thankyouverymuchindeed, not, "Hamburger: $2; meat and bun sold separately."

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Luminar — GMT

"Science Spore" would be pretty much little more than a reskin and new flavor text. Hardly worth the controversy.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Luminar]"Science Spore" would be pretty much little more than a reskin and new flavor text. Hardly worth the controversy.[/quote]

As opposed to the controversy they created when they switched directions after [i]years[/i] of hyping the science aspects of Spore?

They already [i]GOT[/i] controversy; might as well do some [i]GOOD[/i] with it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Luminar — GMT

It happens.

The gamecube tech demo of Zelda way back when was normal rendered fantasy.
They got Wind Waker. They raged. They accomplished nothing other than humiliating themselves.

Oblivion was touted to be more open-ended and free than it's predecessor, Morrowind.
They got more restrictions. They raged. They accomplished nothing other than humiliating themselves.

Fable was supposed to have a multitude of features.
They got none of them. They raged. They got an insincere apology.

Fallout.. ...yeah, three letters. NMA.

It will continue to happen; unreasonable and overblown expectations will be made without basis, and then not met because the devs operated in the land of reasonable and sane, and then this will be met with unreasonable and overblown reactions in the face of sales that are millions strong. All that stands to be accomplished is giving themselves something to regret later on.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

good atleast we're talking about science spore

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

But you've already said you simply want enhanced gameplay... not necessarily science. Two potentially different things.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Very well said, Luminar. Yet people can dream, can't they? Heh...though, I just like anything made by Maxis. I try to not complain; I wasn't one of the brilliant and creative minds at work on this great game, after all. But I would like some...tweaking on Spore, if you care to use that terminology. Much like Sim City 4 was with Rush Hour. Those U-Drive-It missions...they were something else, no? Ah, the tank was my favorite, I'm ashamed to admit.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Draycu]Very well said, Luminar. [/quote]

What, are you kidding me? All Luminar said was, "Can't win; don't try." :roll:

Oh, and apparently also, "No game ever delivers on its promises. Ever."

At least, that's the attitude Luminar has managed to convey, if only by implication.

[quote]
Yet people can dream, can't they? [/quote]

SPORE right, they can.

[b]EDIT:[/b] You've got to be @#$%ing [i]kidding me;[/i] that's not even a swear word! :shock:

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Well...we can't [i]really[/i] win a war without weapons, in a metaphorical sense. I believe that is what Luminar meant, correct? So, I'd say...work for Maxis? Or...make your own game; one which fulfills the demands of your consumer while living up to its hype. I think it's something like 'You can't please everyone at once; someone's going to be complaining about something.' Sort of, at least. The best one can do is please the majority, and the majority wanted simplicity. In Spore's case, that is.

In spite of my cynicism, I believe Spore should be made more scientific. I love Sim Earth, for example.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Draycu]Well...we can't [i]really[/i] win a war without weapons, in a metaphorical sense. [/quote]

We have weapons; they're called [i]dollars.[/i]

All you have to do it hold 'em hostage and eventually Maxis will either die or do what we tell 'em.

[quote]The best one can do is please the majority, and the majority wanted simplicity. In Spore's case, that is.[/quote]

No, they didn't. Maxis [i]decided,[/i] all of their own accord, that the users would want simplicity; the users weren't consulted. And they were full of it, wrong in the deepest way possible.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

I suppose you might wish to check how popular Sim Earth was. I don't believe it sold well. If that's true, then that's the reason for simplicity; the majority, (The people making the game and funding the project.), felt Spore would not have been as successful had it been more complex, (In Sim Earth, one had to manage the levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor to promote life. And this was just for a breathable atmosphere.), I take it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

jasonclarke — GMT

[quote=Draycu] Or...make your own game; one which fulfills the demands of your consumer while living up to its hype. [/quote]

Hmmm... I'll call it Smore.

Smores are tasty; and unlike Spore and cake it will [b]not[/b] be a lie.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Draycu]I suppose you might wish to check how popular Sim Earth was. I don't believe it sold well. [/quote]

That was [i]eighteen years ago.[/i]

If you think the gaming industry hasn't changed in that time, that [i]gamers[/i] haven't changed in that time, we have very little to discuss because we live in very different worlds...and mine's the real one.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Aw...I was only one year old back then. I wanted somebody to do something frivolous and pointless to satisfy my curiosity. Now I'll just have to go and find out myself.

True, RocketGirl, I would find it hard to believe gamers haven't changed. Though I've heard many complain that the games made today are becoming too simplistic. Strange, when considering just eighteen years ago, games were too complex. Or, at least that's just the feeling I get.

...Smore? Hey, I'd buy it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Draycu]Aw...I was only one year old back then.[/quote]

Yes, well, I was [i]fifteen.[/i]
And I wanted a game that actually challenged me.

As it was presented originally, Spore seemed to be SimEarth [i]Plus[/i]: Same basic idea, only the species on our planet were something we could see beyond being merely icons, and when a dominant species left the planet, we could go with 'em.

But Spore, as it is now, is nothing at all like that. Frankly, if you discount its scope, Spore is actually less complicated than TheSims 2. There are fewer factors to deal with, fewer situations one can create that end up how one did not expect, fewer surprises. There's simply no real gameplay in Spore. Not really.

[quote]
True, RocketGirl, I would find it hard to believe gamers haven't changed. Though I've heard many complain that the games made today are becoming too simplistic.[/quote]

Well...they are.

The FPS and RTS genres, coupled with consoles gaming becoming dominant over PC gaming, plus the rise of technology that allows games to be much prettier instead of games being forced to be deep to shore up the lack of graphical impressiveness, games have gotten [i]VERY[/i] dumbed down. Movies, too; [i]flash and glitz[/i] have replaced writing and ideas.

[quote]
Strange, when considering just eighteen years ago, games were too complex. Or, at least that's just the feeling I get.[/quote]

Feh. Games were limited by technology back then; even some of the impressive game [i]ideas[/i] weren't possible, let alone the graphics to realize them.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Well, now I feel like an actor in a commercial about the environment.

"So, RocketGirl, what made things get so out of hand? Further, what can we, the consumer, do about it?"

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Gritmonger — GMT

[quote=Draycu]I suppose you might wish to check how popular Sim Earth was. I don't believe it sold well. If that's true, then that's the reason for simplicity; the majority, (The people making the game and funding the project.), felt Spore would not have been as successful had it been more complex, (In Sim Earth, one had to manage the levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor to promote life. And this was just for a breathable atmosphere.), I take it.[/quote]

You might want to actually play the game. It was a bit more freeform than that. There were a lot of things you could do to heat up/cool down your planet unless you were in the extra-hard modes of terraforming Mars or Venus. If you wanted intelligent plants (one of the harder ones to do) you ended up having to make sure there was plenty of insect life and swamps. If you wanted robots, you had to know the easter egg that if you had a nanotech-level civilization that got nuked, you got robot life.

Other than that, it was neat to watch biomes and lifeforms expand and proliferate, to try and get intelligent life on an almost entirely water world, to see how many civilizations you could get to leave the planet before the ten-billion year mark and the star moved on to helium fusion, if you could manage to keep a stone age civilization alive up to industrialization or information age. I don't play it now only because it is hard as heck to get emulators to run it properly. I bought it twice: once for Mac, once for PC. I wrote to Maxis to ask, since SimCity 2000 had come out, whether or not they were going to do a "simlife" or "simearth" sequel as well.

Now, SimCopter or Streets of SimCity, those are another matter. They are great examples of what happens when Maxis diverges from emergent simulation or "toy" games. Those went the opposite direction from Spore in that they were just a set of video games, shoot-em-ups really. Spore is just the creator tools, like the original editors Will made for himself for "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Bungeling_Bay]Raid on Bungeling Bay[/url]"

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Draycu]Well, now I feel like an actor in a commercial about the environment.

"So, RocketGirl, what made things get so out of hand?[/quote]

Maxis; they mishandled [i]EVERYTHING.[/i]

They didn't speak to us candidly and in a timely fashion about the changes made to Spore.
They made those changes in the first place.
They are continuing their hands-off, aloof policy regarding consumers.
They managed to really honk off a large, large portion of their fanbase for no good reason and to no good effect.

[quote]
Further, what can we, the consumer, do about it?" [/quote]

Not a lot.

Without word from Maxis about the future, making suggestions is pointless...unless your suggestions happen to be in line with what they're planning to do [i]anyway.[/i]

So the most we can really do is complain loudly...and vote with our dollars. Don't buy [i]ANYTHING[/i] from Maxis until they get the hint.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Indeed I have, Gritmonger! And I still own a copy of Sim Earth. Heh...when I was a kid, I was in love with everything Sim. You're right; Sim Earth is a freeform game, yet it is far more complex when compared to Spore. Wow...now I'm starting to feel like playing Sim Earth again. Too bad they didn't make a more updated version; the icons are...less than eye pleasing in my opinion.

Streets of SimCity and SimCopter...I only enjoyed them because I could load and play within a city I designed from SimCity 2000. Then I obtained SimCity 3000 and later, SimCity 4. I haven't touched the trio since.

Er...don't buy anything? Well, I got that little bit of information too late. Oh well, I'll put off buying the next expansion pack. Even if it has a mission creator.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

CallmePopy — GMT

I voted yes, but I DO NOT want maxis to make it. Nor any other game development team who is associated with EA.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

junipe — GMT

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

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

You'd think this would make a difference to [i]SOME[/i]one.

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

Or simply everyone has their own ideas about what science spore is.. I asked that question in its own topic and it started a flame war. If people can't at least get some common ground amonst those who favour it, it doesn't exactly mean much as a blanket term.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]Or simply everyone has their own ideas about what science spore is..
[/quote]

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

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

CallmePopy — GMT

Eek has a point here. "science spore" is a blanket term of sorts as it is being used to describe multiple ideas of what they expect it to be. some want an actual scientific only based game, while others want a more scientifically based version of what we have with a much more complex gameplay, changing the demo-style stages into full-version games of each stage/genre.
This is probably apparent to some of you, but we really need to distinguish between them and classify them more accordingly.

That said, I agree that 77% is enough for a waking slap in the face of whoever says it is unwanted, or that there is no demographic for it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Luminar — GMT

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Luminar]400 vs several million is a clear mismatch. You are protesting in hopes of an utter non-possibility.[/quote]

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Luminar — GMT

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Luminar]Would you care to explain this assertion? You yourself said 400. If I am wrong on that, so are you.[/quote]

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

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Luminar — GMT

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

RocketGirl — GMT

[quote=Luminar]400 is 77% of what? Forum posters? All spore buyers?[/quote]

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

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Luminar — GMT

Or you could give me a non-evasive answer and stop wasting everyone's time, patience and faith in humanity.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Here's an answer; the people who felt like voting. 77% of the people voting wish to play a more 'scientific' version of Spore.

That's out of roughly half a thousand people. That's part of the 28,532 registered users on the Sporum. Not everyone votes, but that doesn't mean they've made their minds up. Just the five hundred or so.

And finally, only 38 voters declined the idea while 402 support it. Only 84 were undecided on the matter. That's a total of 524. The numbers speak for themselves.

Last I checked, the topic was viewed 10,085 times.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

CallmePopy — GMT

poll results work like fractions of a number. lets use 1/8 as an example.
if the total population of players is 1, and 1/8 of them have voted here (about 500 ppl), then to get to the whole number (1), you would have to multiply the fraction (poll) by 8, (1/8 x 8 = 1) if you follow me.
now the actual number and fraction is irrelevant here, because the poll is of players who use sporum.

Much like how the presidential election took polls before the election took place, this poll will show (estimated) what percentage of ppl want the game. Though there is a margin of error, the poll will be somewhat accurate when scaled up to the actual number of players.

Ask your math teacher or an accountant that you know of to give you the exact equation, sorry I dont have it. But according to the basic rules of mathematics, this poll is more than sufficent because of the sheer number of players who have voted. Only a couple hundred votes is needed to estimate the election on govt. sanctioned polls, so 500 votes should really be overkill.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

junipe — GMT

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

You'd think this would make a difference to [i]SOME[/i]one.

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

true

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

NICKY96 — GMT

Well I know this sounds crazy but what if a lot of people stoped playing spore like what if we all stopped sending new creations. Wouldn't ea notice the drop and think well mabey we should make something better to bring back the people and thean bam we get science spore in an expansion or whole other game.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Or...they could look this topic up and the plan is foiled! Heh, or they think everyone's run out of creative ideas.

I'm kidding...or am I?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Eekwotsthat]But you've already said you simply want enhanced gameplay... not necessarily science. Two potentially different things.[/quote] LOOK AT MY THREAD ITS BEEN RE NAMED BUT I'VE REPLIED
and can you stop criticizing every thing i post

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=CallmePopy]Eek has a point here. "science spore" is a blanket term of sorts as it is being used to describe multiple ideas of what they expect it to be. some want an actual scientific only based game, while others want a more scientifically based version of what we have with a much more complex gameplay, changing the demo-style stages into full-version games of each stage/genre.
This is probably apparent to some of you, but we really need to distinguish between them and classify them more accordingly.

That said, I agree that 77% is enough for a waking slap in the face of whoever says it is unwanted, or that there is no demographic for it.[/quote]
science spore is what we saw in the 2005 demo

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

hold on i've an idea why don't we make it oh yeah people where talking about it but then seemed to forget about it

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Eekwotsthat — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl][quote=Eekwotsthat]Or simply everyone has their own ideas about what science spore is..
[/quote]

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

Nobody has argued, to my knowledge, that Spore is perfect. Most people agree that it needs improvement even if they enjoy it as is. Science spore as a general label has, especially in the past been a beacon for anyone who wants enhanced gameplay, not necessarily science. As such the numbers aren't suprising. When you break down what people actually want, then you would get a true indication of people's desires.

Anyone who wants to specify what they classify science spore as of course can always post in :
[url=http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/30/12646.page]What is science spore[/url]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Draycu — GMT

Ah, that's just it; how can one specify a desire when faced with such a broad term? People all have their own ideas and dreams, and it is nearly impossible to mesh them together seamlessly. I say 'nearly impossible', as I, myself, do not know how to accomplish such a feat. Nevertheless, I will post my opinion on what a 'Science' Spore is in the topic.

There; my work is done. Bah, that was a pain. My mind is exhausted from that! Someone, anyone, please check out Eekwotsthat's topic! Ugh...I'm going to go play Spore to recuperate. Heh...

http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/30/12646.page

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

schnautzr — GMT

If I recall correctly, I remember reading somewhere that Will Wright was planning on releasing a second version of Spore, although he had no idea how it would be different/better. He said that it was up to the fans what would go into it.

Knowing this, I'd say there's likelihood of two things:
Spore 2: More action-packed, built for a "more mature" war-game-loving audience.
Spore 2: True as possible to science, possibly even allowing branching of species into subspecies.
Spore 2: A blend of science and action-packed "more mature" war.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

schnautzr — GMT

[b]Let's see those procedural verbs![/b]

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Prometheus09 — GMT

[quote=RocketGirl]So now that it's obvious there's a market for it, do you think Maxis should simply make a second Spore game that's more in line with the original vision? Do you think they will? And speaking of will, should Will Wright put in an appearance and actually make a statement on this issue?

I, for one, would love to know if Maxis has [i]any[/i] plans to revisit the original vision, to release Spore For The Rest Of Us™.

Discuss.[/quote]

I voted "Don't care", not because I don't care about other people's opinions or desires, but mainly because this is the only game I really play, and I find it suitably entertaining.

While I still understand your aversion to the current form of Spore, I highly doubt Maxis will make any sort of hard scientific version of the game. The goal of any company like this is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and I would say that unfortunately, the demographic that is angry with Spore being too unscientific must be the minority or else EA would be listening more. Not that the pro hard science folks are wrong for what they want, but just that I think the majority of people are just either tired of the game and stopped playing, or they are still really into it and enjoy it for what it is.

On the bright side, RocketGirl, I think the Spore is actually a heck of a lot more revolutionary that it is given credit for... it really has spawned almost a totally genre of gaming, and I think it will set a foundation for many other games to come. So, perhaps soon you will see a similar game from a different developer that is along the same lines as what you may want.

One thing I would like to see in Spore is automated evolution... that is, when you are in Space stage for example, you can see creatures slowly evolving physically... not just culturally. So if you went back, from time to time the creatures would be evolving... this would be based off the genetic iterations we create while playing the game.

Anyhow, glad to see you still on the forum I never really see you in the other forums, so I didn't know if you were still around

Cheers!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

BumpInTheNight — GMT

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/rocketgrrl/Webstuff/ScienceSpore.jpg[/img]
I hope you don't mind me putting this in my sig.

I think people should stop focusing on the flaws of the current version of Spore and start pushing for movement to make the original Spore a reality.

Movements, as you may have noticed in this day and age, take money. If we can donate enough money to Maxis, I think they'll start listening. But I'd like to send it directly to Will Wright.

What if a population funded a game company instead of a publisher like EA?

Imagine a democratically controlled game. The more money you put into the game the more it becomes your design.

The game could be perfected to our tests, if we only funded it.

And it would have to take as long as it took.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=schnautzr]If I recall correctly, I remember reading somewhere that Will Wright was planning on releasing a second version of Spore, although he had no idea how it would be different/better. He said that it was up to the fans what would go into it.

Knowing this, I'd say there's likelihood of two things:
Spore 2: More action-packed, built for a "more mature" war-game-loving audience.
Spore 2: True as possible to science, possibly even allowing branching of species into subspecies.
Spore 2: A blend of science and action-packed "more mature" war.[/quote]
i want a mixture of all of those + better gameplay

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Falvrian — GMT

I'll just bluntly admit I haven't read anything past page one because I've already discussed this topic at length on at least three other threads (and I remember RocketGirl being there on the last one I took part).

Anyway, I'm all up for Science Spore (it was my side on all the threads I discussed) so here's my vote and support (a bump to the thread)!

Now get back up there and give me fifty!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

delurkish — GMT

I really don't see the point if Maxis can just update the original version anyway

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

dre9000 — GMT

how bout someone starting a thread or something to release that gdc 2005 demo to the public as a download off there site that way we get a taste of science spore.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Davianti — GMT

Wow that was Rocket girls last post wonder if she's still around.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

delurkish — GMT

I totally support science Spore! if it wasn't for Chris Hecker, Who doesn't want science in Spore at all because he thinks it would much funner if we weren't allowed to create are own planets . And that's not all! he doesn't support underwater planets either because its "way to sophisticated and complex." Oh and of course all of our creatures HAVE to wear sneakers. I think C&C should still be though AS LONG as it doesn't take any science out of Spore.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

tonkcamp — GMT

I think he will

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

KnynonMike — GMT

Go Science Spore!

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Jackuul — GMT

Even if it was 4,000,000 votes to 10, it would not happen.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ericDartist — GMT

[quote=delurkish]I totally support science Spore! if it wasn't for Chris Hecker, Who doesn't want science in Spore at all because he thinks it would much funner if we weren't allowed to create are own planets . And that's not all! he doesn't support underwater planets either because its "way to sophisticated and complex." Oh and of course all of our creatures HAVE to wear sneakers. I think C&C should still be though AS LONG as it doesn't take any science out of Spore.[/quote]
Darn those Liberals... er, Hecker

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=delurkish]I really don't see the point if Maxis can just update the original version anyway [/quote]
the problem is that they will update but throughn so many expansion packs that we will have to pay so
much that we will all be 1million euros/dollars/pounds in debt

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

and what happened to rocket girl

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ashloc — GMT

Rocketgirl likely left becasue she got tired of people who love spore flaming her all dan dday for asking for somethingwe should have got the first time around and then realized it was beating a dead horse to ask for it from Maxis.

Lucky for me I don't care how many people get upset with me for asking and I don't care if I am seen as annoying for doing it even if there is no hope it will happen.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Megazear7 — GMT

I hope Maxis either:

A) Puts a gun to my head and tell me there never gona give us Spore 05'

or

B) Give me my hopes and dreams back and tell me they are going to make Spore into what we saw in 05'

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Ashloc — GMT

This is how I view spores fall.

Start off with a beautiful untainted idea, Make the foundation on that idea big and strong. Build up on that strong foundation and build a robust framework. Build it until its a beautiful container to hold something potentially far greater.

Then Hire some 5 year olds to finish the job

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Sirus — GMT

I'd 100% vote for YES, but the poll seems to be closed. =/

Are you guys still working on Open-Sporce? I might be able to contribute a little bit.

Yes, the version of Spore they released is fairly fun, and the editors allow me to get really creative, but the video they showed from 2005 looks so much cooler. I don't care if this is a whole new game or just an expansion; make it happen, someone!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Pavpavpav — GMT

I support it.
[b]But no!!! Big companies like EA won't give their customers what they want and because of that all video games now are being dumbed down[/b]
Example: It takes me a week or two to beat Super Mario Sunshine's story on my ????run but I beat super Mario galaxy in (drumroll) [b]THREE DAYS!!!!!![/b]

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Davianti — GMT

[quote=Pavpavpav]I support it.
[b]But no!!! Big companies like EA won't give their customers what they want and because of that all video games now are being dumbed down[/b]
Example: It takes me a week or two to beat Super Mario Sunshine's story on my ????run but I beat super Mario galaxy in (drumroll) [b]THREE DAYS!!!!!![/b][/quote]
I'm a long time gamer, I've been playing video games since I seen Pong the first time. The direction game companies are going with escalating production costs making it expensive to do the artwork required by the majority of gamers is forcing out a lot of gameplay and content. That's why games don't take as long to complete as they once did (with the exception of MMO's that make there money by you never finishing). This is why I had such high hopes for Spore player created content in a game you could play forever. As it stands with the player created content not making me want to play the game long enough to see all that neat content, the poor way that content is brought to us (repeatedly seeing the same things in game with this much content I shouldn't have 3 empires atacking me that look the same). It didn't live up to my expectations for some I'm sure it's enough but not for me, a nice occasional distraction but nothing more. Allmost has me packing up my toys and going home (quiting any future gaming other than any older games). What I would really love to see is a change where people see the huge amounts of content that can be stored on current media and say, "hay why don't we just go back to say PS2 level graphics with all this storage space and make a game that is more about gameplay and content than pretty graphics." Heck at one time I was even hopeing they would do that and use 8bit graphics.
*End minor rant.*

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Greys_Beauty — GMT

See, I'm not quite sure about a scientific version of Spore. The reason I like Spore is because its complicated, but lets you see and do things in a simple way. The Sims was very complicated and showed itself in a complicated way. So no, i don't think its a good idea because I fear that they will make it more complicated then it needs to be and take all the fun out of the game. As long as you yourself think and understand about the science concepts, then just be happy with that.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

peppersprayed — GMT

[quote=Greys_Beauty]See, I'm not quite sure about a scientific version of Spore. The reason I like Spore is because its complicated, but lets you see and do things in a simple way. The Sims was very complicated and showed itself in a complicated way. So no, i don't think its a good idea because I fear that they will make it more complicated then it needs to be and take all the fun out of the game. As long as you yourself think and understand about the science concepts, then just be happy with that. [/quote]

Have you played any of Maxis' earlier games?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Greys_Beauty — GMT

[quote]Have you played any of Maxis' earlier games?[/quote]
How early do you mean??? I've played SimCity on all the way up. (That would also include SimCity on the Nintendo 64) The problem a lot of the time with Maxis is that they make eveything too complicated. I mean believe me, Spore is still pretty complex but, using it isn't. If they would make one that goes in depth in science concepts, don't you think that would make it more complicated?!??! The reason I love Spore, is because it uses the evolution concept simply but also because Spore is crazy, simple, and fun!!!!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

peppersprayed — GMT

[quote=Greys_Beauty][quote]Have you played any of Maxis' earlier games?[/quote]
How early do you mean??? I've played SimCity on all the way up. (That would also include SimCity on the Nintendo 64) The problem a lot of the time with Maxis is that they make eveything too complicated. I mean believe me, Spore is still pretty complex but, using it isn't. If they would make one that goes in depth in science concepts, don't you think that would make it more complicated?!??! The reason I love Spore, is because it uses the evolution concept simply but also because Spore is crazy, simple, and fun!!!![/quote]

I was referring to sim city up. Sim city wasn't complex,it was very simple. It was the various mechanics interacting at higher levels as your city grew that became complex. It was very simple to play but you had to think more and more about how to balance things as you built a larger city. You could not progress past a point without learning. I'm not sure what your complaint there is, that it actually posed an intellectual challenge beyond a certain point? It's not that a novice couldn't play it, it's that there was always something left to shoot for. There are still people trying to figure out the absolute limit of city design in Sim city 3000 nine years later and I think that's a good thing.

DNA is simple.....

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

peppersprayed — GMT

[quote=Davianti][quote=Pavpavpav]I support it.
[b]But no!!! Big companies like EA won't give their customers what they want and because of that all video games now are being dumbed down[/b]
Example: It takes me a week or two to beat Super Mario Sunshine's story on my ????run but I beat super Mario galaxy in (drumroll) [b]THREE DAYS!!!!!![/b][/quote]
I'm a long time gamer, I've been playing video games since I seen Pong the first time. The direction game companies are going with escalating production costs making it expensive to do the artwork required by the majority of gamers is forcing out a lot of gameplay and content. That's why games don't take as long to complete as they once did (with the exception of MMO's that make there money by you never finishing). This is why I had such high hopes for Spore player created content in a game you could play forever. As it stands with the player created content not making me want to play the game long enough to see all that neat content, the poor way that content is brought to us (repeatedly seeing the same things in game with this much content I shouldn't have 3 empires atacking me that look the same). It didn't live up to my expectations for some I'm sure it's enough but not for me, a nice occasional distraction but nothing more. Allmost has me packing up my toys and going home (quiting any future gaming other than any older games). What I would really love to see is a change where people see the huge amounts of content that can be stored on current media and say, "hay why don't we just go back to say PS2 level graphics with all this storage space and make a game that is more about gameplay and content than pretty graphics." Heck at one time I was even hopeing they would do that and use 8bit graphics.
*End minor rant.*[/quote]Mega man 9....

oh and I was startled recently when I downloaded SC2K due to having long ago lost the physical copy. Windows 95 version was like 24 Megabytes the DOS version WAS ONE

Oh yeah here is the largest city I am currently aware of in 3000 (I have a thing for 3000)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9CBQPOBZo4

the guy who did this was working on a grid called complexis which was supposed to be bigger but I never heard if that panned out.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Shavonne — GMT

I think they should bring Science back into spore without making the game too much..."sciency." I want it to be still user-friendly and not very complicated but at the same time I want Maxis to make Science Spore. Maybe we can mix the 2 together.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

TheGroxinator — GMT

I want the 2005 version... That is what I want....

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Greys_Beauty — GMT

[quote]I was referring to sim city up. Sim city wasn't complex,it was very simple. It was the various mechanics interacting at higher levels as your city grew that became complex. It was very simple to play but you had to think more and more about how to balance things as you built a larger city. You could not progress past a point without learning. I'm not sure what your complaint there is, that it actually posed an intellectual challenge beyond a certain point? It's not that a novice couldn't play it, it's that there was always something left to shoot for. There are still people trying to figure out the absolute limit of city design in Sim city 3000 nine years later and I think that's a good thing.

DNA is simple.....[/quote]

I wasn't saying that SimCity was complex and that you had to use too much of your brain. In fact, thats what made it fun! I was talking about Maxis overall....Anyway, I don't want them to make it too "sciency," (as Shavonne said) Another words, I don't want having a Science Spore making the game really complex and HARD to play. By hard, I mean for example, having some of the science concepts a little too hard to understand or having to go through 1,000 tutorials before you start playing the game & still have no idea whats going on or how to do something!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Greys_Beauty — GMT

Pavpavpav wrote:
I support it.
But no!!! Big companies like EA won't give their customers what they want and because of that all video games now are being dumbed down
Example: It takes me a week or two to beat Super Mario Sunshine's story on my ????run but I beat super Mario galaxy in (drumroll) THREE DAYS!!!!!!
[quote]
I'm a long time gamer, I've been playing video games since I seen Pong the first time. The direction game companies are going with escalating production costs making it expensive to do the artwork required by the majority of gamers is forcing out a lot of gameplay and content. That's why games don't take as long to complete as they once did (with the exception of MMO's that make there money by you never finishing). This is why I had such high hopes for Spore player created content in a game you could play forever. As it stands with the player created content not making me want to play the game long enough to see all that neat content, the poor way that content is brought to us (repeatedly seeing the same things in game with this much content I shouldn't have 3 empires atacking me that look the same). It didn't live up to my expectations for some I'm sure it's enough but not for me, a nice occasional distraction but nothing more. Allmost has me packing up my toys and going home (quiting any future gaming other than any older games). What I would really love to see is a change where people see the huge amounts of content that can be stored on current media and say, "hay why don't we just go back to say PS2 level graphics with all this storage space and make a game that is more about gameplay and content than pretty graphics." Heck at one time I was even hopeing they would do that and use 8bit graphics.
*End minor rant.*[/quote]

I can agree with you here....All the game companies are SO focused with making the game look, "cool", that they've forgotton about the people who actually buy the game to PLAY IT! Not sit there and go oow.....ah......that's pretty..... I mean, it may make the game more enjoyable but decreases gameplay by a thousand times!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

ericDartist — GMT

Are you [i]sure[/i] games were actually harder back then? That it isn't since you're older and better at gaming, while games have basically stayed at the same difficulty level? I revisited some 'impossible' games from my childhood and breezed thru them, but that's just me. ('course, I can't figure out the original Metroid after playing nearly every one of its sequels )

I know for a fact that the Mario Kart series is STILL a major case of 'the computer is a cheating *******'

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Davianti — GMT

Exhibit A:Ghosts and Goblins. There are exceptions though go ahead and try the new Castlevania for Nintendo DS (and I love Portrait of Ruin). Someone mentioned Megaman 9 I've never mutch cared for that game series myself but I am seeing this in xbox live and those kind of downloadable games. The bigest factor in all those old games was the old 3 man convention and no saves. That made them more dificult not allways more fun though. Of course I've allways been more of a strategy Rpg gamer myself. Yea they had old creature raising games prior to Pokemon too, (Mail order Monsters anyone?)

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Alchemist — GMT

[quote=SpongB6F1]...(It is also true that a more explicit emphasis on science, in terms, for example, of actual facts you could discover or read about in your exploration of the galaxy, would be a welcome addition. No one would force you to read them. Think of a Civilization game, where each unit and building has historical background information and the game is full of actual quotes from famous figures. Think of, say, a game like Baldur's Gate, where the whole game is packed with detailed books on the history and culture of the game world--all made up in a fantasy setting. Would it be too much to ask for some kind of actual science reference, put in English words, somewhere in Spore? That is not dreary or didactic. It's just added interest for those with the inclination.)[/quote]

My thoughts exactly
Although, I try to do so with the descriptions of my creatures, but I would LOVE more freedom to see this ingame.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

pigsfly — GMT

What does the topic mean?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Davianti — GMT

[quote=pigsfly]What does the topic mean? [/quote]

Here this video is what there talking about. It was made 3 years ago with much debate if it's just a video or a true demo of the game. Watch it what is shown here is what is refered to as Science Spore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

deadlineclick — GMT

[quote=Nextek]But whether or not one will be science baised, I doubt it, im also not sure if i would buy it, depends on how complicated they make it.[/quote]

the more complicated the better if you ask me. i could do without the 'cute' side of this game completely. i don't mind it really, but a realistic science based Spore would be awesome.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Prottossruleso — GMT

Depends, if they make it to realistic, it woulnd't be very fun, but if it retains the charming, funny and interesting concepts, i'll play it, but we more likely need expansion, the point of the game when it comes to being fun is the charm and humor, and creepyness you can make. And stop neglecting Creepy and cute, it's a parts pack, I have it, and it's worth it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Prottossruleso]Depends, if they make it to realistic, it woulnd't be very fun, but if it retains the charming, funny and interesting concepts, i'll play it, but we more likely need expansion, the point of the game when it comes to being fun is the charm and humor, and creepyness you can make. And stop neglecting Creepy and cute, it's a parts pack, I have it, and it's worth it.[/quote]
the charming funny aspect suck i want the game we were supposed to get

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

The only thing from the 2005 video (assuming that is the holy grail of the "science spore" movement) I think should be added back in is the flow. Sure, the aquatic stage would be nice, but it looks like it would just be the animal stage in a 3-d enviroment + Bubbles. The flow between stages (though in the video is probably due to a incomplete DNA points system) would be nice. The flow of the animal stage where you are not just going from nest to nest, where the animals are more active, that would be great. As for blood, mating, cells that look like cells, ect ect ect, the idea that those would improve the game is ridiculous.

Spore doesn't need science, it needs content.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx]The only thing from the 2005 video (assuming that is the holy grail of the "science spore" movement) I think should be added back in is the flow. Sure, the aquatic stage would be nice, but it looks like it would just be the animal stage in a 3-d enviroment + Bubbles. The flow between stages (though in the video is probably due to a incomplete DNA points system) would be nice. The flow of the animal stage where you are not just going from nest to nest, where the animals are more active, that would be great. As for blood, mating, cells that look like cells, ect ect ect, the idea that those would improve the game is ridiculous.

Spore doesn't need science, it needs content.[/quote]
wrong if you want spore to become the tellytubies game fine but all those things that you said are ridiculous
are the thing that ea removed to make the game appeal to 2 year olds like you and your name really suits you

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx]The only thing from the 2005 video (assuming that is the holy grail of the "science spore" movement) I think should be added back in is the flow. Sure, the aquatic stage would be nice, but it looks like it would just be the animal stage in a 3-d enviroment + Bubbles. The flow between stages (though in the video is probably due to a incomplete DNA points system) would be nice. The flow of the animal stage where you are not just going from nest to nest, where the animals are more active, that would be great. As for blood, mating, cells that look like cells, ect ect ect, the idea that those would improve the game is ridiculous.

Spore doesn't need science, it needs content.[/quote]
wrong if you want spore to become the tellytubies game fine but all those things that you said are ridiculous
are the thing that ea removed to make the game appeal to 2 year olds like you and your name really suits you[/quote]

Ad Hominem? tisk tisk tisk Let us not argue like two year olds Mr. Pie.

Sure, they probably took out one and two so they can achieve a lower rating. Blood is largely just another pointless graphic that would increase chances of lag, taking it away was a win win situation. As for the need to witness hot muppet love, your on your own with that.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx]The only thing from the 2005 video (assuming that is the holy grail of the "science spore" movement) I think should be added back in is the flow. Sure, the aquatic stage would be nice, but it looks like it would just be the animal stage in a 3-d enviroment + Bubbles. The flow between stages (though in the video is probably due to a incomplete DNA points system) would be nice. The flow of the animal stage where you are not just going from nest to nest, where the animals are more active, that would be great. As for blood, mating, cells that look like cells, ect ect ect, the idea that those would improve the game is ridiculous.

Spore doesn't need science, it needs content.[/quote]
wrong if you want spore to become the tellytubies game fine but all those things that you said are ridiculous
are the thing that ea removed to make the game appeal to 2 year olds like you and your name really suits you[/quote]

Ad Hominem? tisk tisk tisk Let us not argue like two year olds Mr. Pie.

Sure, they probably took out one and two so they can achieve a lower rating. Blood is largely just another pointless graphic that would increase chances of lag, taking it away was a win win situation. As for the need to witness hot muppet love, your on your own with that.[/quote]

i don't want mating blood would be ok i dont realy care cells that look like cells would be great do you want kids to think that cells mate using whale songs and have googly eyes?
i don't mind kids playing it but why make the game suitable for 3 year olds when you have to be over thirteen to
register it and play?
i'm just anoyed i did not get the game that i waited and payed for!

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

stupid ea

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

theultimateend — GMT

Absolutely; I'd buy/play that! 77% [ 485 ]
No; I wouldn't buy/play that. 7% [ 45 ]
Undecided or Don't Care 16% [ 103 ]
Total Votes : 633

Well that seals it.

EA Maxis made the right decision in making a childlike version of spore. Almost nobody said they would like a Science one.

*re reads the results*

Oh...nevermind then.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=theultimateend]Absolutely; I'd buy/play that! 77% [ 485 ]
No; I wouldn't buy/play that. 7% [ 45 ]
Undecided or Don't Care 16% [ 103 ]
Total Votes : 633

Well that seals it.

EA Maxis made the right decision in making a childlike version of spore. Almost nobody said they would like a Science one.

*re reads the results*

Oh...nevermind then.[/quote]
wtf

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Strategist — GMT

If I may ask, what makes "Science Spore" more scientific then the current one? As far as I can tell both have about the same level of Science, just one looked more realistic.

What I mean by Scientific is Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, etc., not just effects that makes it seem more realistic (e.g. Blood and Mating). As far as I am aware, the only scientific part of "Science Spore" was it's "evolution" (really intelligent design any way one slices it) and wandering animals.

Also, I think it's fair to point out that the 06 demonstration did not have the underwater stage (check the sporewiki), wandering animals (they stayed by their nests) or blood.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHaulHxmO4A[/youtube]

Infact, it looks very much like the current spore now doesn't it? (granted it does have more gameplay elements, but visually it closely resembles the final product)

Disclaimer: I am merely posting this as a question, I as well as everyone else would like to see a better gameplay version of spore. However, I do wonder why everyone is so obsessed with the 05 demonstration which was merely a prototype...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Strategist]If I may ask, what makes "Science Spore" more scientific then the current one? As far as I can tell both have about the same level of Science, just one looked more realistic.

What I mean by Scientific is Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, etc., not just stuff that makes it seem more realistic (e.g. Blood and Mating). As far as I am aware, the only scientific part of "Science Spore" was "evolution" (really intelligent design any way one slices it) and wandering animals.

Also, I think it's fair to point out that the 06 demonstration did not have the underwater stage (check the wiki), wandering animals (they stayed by their nests) or blood.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHaulHxmO4A[/youtube]

Infact, it looks very much like the current spore now doesn't it? (granted it does have a better looking civ phase but otherwise it looks the same)[/quote]
the 2005 one did and 2006 one did not have cell stage or tribe
and is that the best video you can get

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Strategist — GMT

I can find another one no problem:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E9NZeHP0lM[/youtube]

Note that the screen shows a cell phase, creature phase, tribe phase, city phase (later merged with civ), civ phase, and space phase icons but no underwater phase.

Even if it's not the same as the game shown in the 05 demonstration, this version is still a major improvement (gameplay wise) over the current one.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Strategist]I can find another one no problem:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E9NZeHP0lM[/youtube]

Note that the screen shows a cell phase, creature phase, tribe phase, city phase (later merged with civ), civ phase, and space phase icons but no underwater phase.

Even if it's not the same as the game shown in the 05 demonstration, this version is still a major improvement (gameplay wise) over the current one. [/quote]
do you really think that ea cares about us any way where has everyone else gone every science spore supporter except me is gone probably from endless flaming from theguy145

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx]The only thing from the 2005 video (assuming that is the holy grail of the "science spore" movement) I think should be added back in is the flow. Sure, the aquatic stage would be nice, but it looks like it would just be the animal stage in a 3-d enviroment + Bubbles. The flow between stages (though in the video is probably due to a incomplete DNA points system) would be nice. The flow of the animal stage where you are not just going from nest to nest, where the animals are more active, that would be great. As for blood, mating, cells that look like cells, ect ect ect, the idea that those would improve the game is ridiculous.

Spore doesn't need science, it needs content.[/quote]
wrong if you want spore to become the tellytubies game fine but all those things that you said are ridiculous
are the thing that ea removed to make the game appeal to 2 year olds like you and your name really suits you[/quote]

Ad Hominem? tisk tisk tisk Let us not argue like two year olds Mr. Pie.

Sure, they probably took out one and two so they can achieve a lower rating. Blood is largely just another pointless graphic that would increase chances of lag, taking it away was a win win situation. As for the need to witness hot muppet love, your on your own with that.[/quote]

i don't want mating blood would be ok i dont realy care cells that look like cells would be great do you want kids to think that cells mate using whale songs and have googly eyes?
i don't mind kids playing it but why make the game suitable for 3 year olds when you have to be over thirteen to
register it and play?
i'm just anoyed i did not get the game that i waited and payed for![/quote]

Yeah, mitosis would have been an admitably better way to go, both realisticly and visually, but the eyes are an unimportant.

I would not buy science spore if it was just spore now with all these superficial details attended to. I would prefer they add gameplay.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Strategist — GMT

[quote]o you really think that ea cares about us any way[/quote]
Hmm, probably not.

Again I must ask though, what makes "Science Spore" so scientific? Sure it most certainly has gameplay that looks as though it would be much more enjoyable, but I fail to see how it is scientific.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Felix78 — GMT

Hi there,

tbh, I voted pro science Spore, but I don't want a Spore 2 in the next five years.
Instead I would ilke to see a lot of expansions where they slowly bring in more stuff to explore and discover and science related gameplay including more all that evolutionary choices and more effects on later gameplay etc etc.

Talking about "Science Spore" for me is more gameplay related and less graphic related. I mean, i am fine with the graphics and the editors ... it just lacks professional deep gameplay.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Felix78]Hi there,

tbh, I voted pro science Spore, but I don't want a Spore 2 in the next five years.
Instead I would ilke to see a lot of expansions where they slowly bring in more stuff to explore and discover and science related gameplay including more all that evolutionary choices and more effects on later gameplay etc etc.

Talking about "Science Spore" for me is more gameplay related and less graphic related. I mean, i am fine with the graphics and the editors ... it just lacks professional deep gameplay.

[/quote]
good could you come to this thread more often because every one is gone and i'm the only
one keeping the thread alive

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

klawz — GMT

what if this thread [b]should[/b] die?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

PlanetKing — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Felix78]Hi there,

tbh, I voted pro science Spore, but I don't want a Spore 2 in the next five years.
Instead I would ilke to see a lot of expansions where they slowly bring in more stuff to explore and discover and science related gameplay including more all that evolutionary choices and more effects on later gameplay etc etc.

Talking about "Science Spore" for me is more gameplay related and less graphic related. I mean, i am fine with the graphics and the editors ... it just lacks professional deep gameplay.

[/quote]
good could you come to this thread more often because every one is gone and i'm the only
one keeping the thread alive[/quote]
This thread should die thats why no one comes anymore stop bumping it

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=PlanetKing][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Felix78]Hi there,

tbh, I voted pro science Spore, but I don't want a Spore 2 in the next five years.
Instead I would ilke to see a lot of expansions where they slowly bring in more stuff to explore and discover and science related gameplay including more all that evolutionary choices and more effects on later gameplay etc etc.

Talking about "Science Spore" for me is more gameplay related and less graphic related. I mean, i am fine with the graphics and the editors ... it just lacks professional deep gameplay.

[/quote]
good could you come to this thread more often because every one is gone and i'm the only
one keeping the thread alive[/quote]
This thread should die thats why no one comes anymore stop bumping it[/quote]
im not bumping the reason no one comes any more is that people like theguy145 is flaming every one and you can't tell me what to do

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

klawz — GMT

will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

klawz — GMT

and your point is.............

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=klawz]and your point is.............[/quote]
i just made it if this thread gets locked it will just sink to the bottom of the pile
and no one new will see it

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

klawz — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]and your point is.............[/quote]
i just made it if this thread gets locked it will just sink to the bottom of the pile
and no one new will see it[/quote]
1. your point is............
2. there is a thread with 2 replies that is one of the "hottest topics", why would this one sink if the other one didn't?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game??????

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=klawz][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]and your point is.............[/quote]
i just made it if this thread gets locked it will just sink to the bottom of the pile
and no one new will see it[/quote]
1. your point is............
2. there is a thread with 2 replies that is one of the "hottest topics", why would this one sink if the other one didn't?[/quote]
this one isn't on hottest topics any more people just won't notice it after its locked the one thats there must get a lot of views

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 .

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen[/quote]

Well, no, nobody that matters will listen, and if they do, they won't take it seriously. Thats life.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen[/quote]

Well, no, nobody that matters will listen, and if they do, they won't take it seriously. Thats life.[/quote]

if nobody ever complained would we have advance at all no we would still be cavemen
if i complian someone will have to listen will wright posted something its one of the hottest topics

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

abufikatoo — GMT

I like Spore all right the way it is, but if it were more scientifically accurate, I would like it better. Especially the Cell stage. "Cells" do not have googly eyes and make little sqeaky noises and have multicellular appendages on their bodies such as poison or electricity glands. They're cute and funny and all, but I'd like the Cell stage much better if it were more scientifically accurate, like your cell wasn't a legless, cartoon-styled insect with googly eyes, but actually a cell, just a little blobbish, amoeba (sp?)-like thing. And you could gradually give it more complex parts that were multicellular, such as the spikes, as you progressed a little further, and about halfway through the stage, when your cell was getting pretty big, you could give it eyes and other fancy stuff. It really is a shame that the underwater stage was taken out, as well, because... it feels very strange if in those science movies they have about evolution and prehistoric life the fishlike thing would emerge onto land as a very primitive, salamader-ish thing, and then you play this game, and... out of the water comes a blobbish, googly-eyed cartoon insect... but with legs and perhaps a different body shape this time. I think that the Creature stage seen in the GDC 2005 demo also looked better as well, what with how there WERE nests like in the version of Spore that we have, but you barely ever saw them and creature's didn't just stick around their nests, occasionally wandering around the map in a small group, like they do now. It would've been cooler if the entire herd pretty much [i]never[/i] just stuck around their nest, only a few would be around, and most of them would be out, say, grazing. Or if they were carnivores, scattered across the continent there would be carnivores hunting alone or in small groups, looking for prey and attacking you on sight. That is, unless you were stronger than them, then they would run away or something. The socialization thing is also very unrealistic - it's cool and all that you can ally with creatures that aren't your species, and even hunt, explore, etc in a pack with them - but singing and dancing? ...what?

Not just creature behavior and looks, but also I think that the stats should have been morphology-based. It's awesome how they were in the Cell stage - I applaud EA and Maxis for that - but it's pretty strange how if they have feet with lots of toes, a bumbling, fattish, short-legged creature can outrun a tall, thin, sleek creature with long legs and a smoothly-curving, aerodynamic body shape. It would've been cool if, say, a long, thin shape, well-supported by long, sturdy legs, and if features such as the mouth/head and such were not disproportionately big would make the creature a little faster, whereas making it stout, bulky, stiff, blocky, and stubby-legged would make it slower. Many other things besides speed could be morphology-based, but I should be doing homework right now so I don't really feel like listing them all.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen[/quote]

Well, no, nobody that matters will listen, and if they do, they won't take it seriously. Thats life.[/quote]

if nobody ever complained would we have advance at all no we would still be cavemen
if i complian someone will have to listen will wright posted something its one of the hottest topics [/quote]

If i remember right, he posted to say they were out of line with the lynch mob they were forming.

Also, complaining isn't the cornerstone of society. Aside from the occasional revolution over a major issue, it has little use.

Feedback has more uses. By that i mean saying "I think spore would be better with this this and this" not "OMG spore SPORE, i hat u guyz for making it for 2 yearlds!!11"

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Hewit — GMT

if people want the science of spore just get Blizzard to make it... it will be decent and extremely difficult

Probably have to pay per month thought.... Blizz would make a fortune too...

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=Hewit]if people want the science of spore just get Blizzard to make it... it will be decent and extremely difficult

Probably have to pay per month thought.... Blizz would make a fortune too... [/quote]

I much did blizzard pay you to say that

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

Nice to see that at least some of the original concerns are still present.

Any changes on the meat of the game?
Or is it still a 50 euro's mr potato head with none of the original intended gameplay?

edit: And no this thread should not die. I have gone cold turkey and my head is a lot more clearer now.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen[/quote]
yeah but 3 of the hottest topic are complaining to ea

Well, no, nobody that matters will listen, and if they do, they won't take it seriously. Thats life.[/quote]

if nobody ever complained would we have advance at all no we would still be cavemen
if i complian someone will have to listen will wright posted something its one of the hottest topics [/quote]

If i remember right, he posted to say they were out of line with the lynch mob they were forming.

Also, complaining isn't the cornerstone of society. Aside from the occasional revolution over a major issue, it has little use.

Feedback has more uses. By that i mean saying "I think spore would be better with this this and this" not "OMG spore SPORE, i hat u guyz for making it for 2 yearlds!!11"[/quote]

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Parvati]Nice to see that at least some of the original concerns are still present.

Any changes on the meat of the game?
Or is it still a 50 euro's mr potato head with none of the original intended gameplay?

edit: And no this thread should not die. I have gone cold turkey and my head is a lot more clearer now.
[/quote]
good now how to get ea to listen i know pm will wright

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Parvati]Nice to see that at least some of the original concerns are still present.

Any changes on the meat of the game?
Or is it still a 50 euro's mr potato head with none of the original intended gameplay?

edit: And no this thread should not die. I have gone cold turkey and my head is a lot more clearer now.
[/quote]
good now how to get ea to listen i know pm will wright[/quote]

Ah but I notice its still suffering from the same community problems.
Maybe its better next year.

Laters.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=Parvati]Ah but I notice its still suffering from the same community problems.
Maybe its better next year.

Laters.[/quote]

Take care, mi amigo! It's good to know you're alright.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

were the hell has everyone gone

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=MinionJoe][quote=Parvati]Ah but I notice its still suffering from the same community problems.
Maybe its better next year.

Laters.[/quote]

Take care, mi amigo! It's good to know you're alright. [/quote]

Joeeeee

Good to see you my man.
Still trolling the place or did you clean up your act a bit?
Yea, I'm doing fine. Work has been crazy wich is good.

Games are still crap but what can you do about it right
Well take care and maybe w'll bump into each other again.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=Parvati]Still trolling the place or did you clean up your act a bit? [/quote]

Oh, I'm trolling harder than ever. I had something get into the root on my system and hijack my OS. Had to wipe the drive completely. Of course, I blame SecuROM.

[quote]Games are still crap but what can you do about it right
Well take care and maybe w'll bump into each other again.[/quote]

I just finished Fallout 3 last night. But Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts is what got the taste of Spore out of my mouth.

You take care too man! Excellent to hear from you!

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Parvati — GMT

[quote=MinionJoe] Of course, I blame SecuROM. [/quote]

Course, my micro-oven exploded on me the other day. SecuROM man. No qeustion about that

[quote=MinionJoe]
I just finished Fallout 3 last night. But Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts is what got the taste of Spore out of my mouth.
[/quote]

Oh, then I must find myself a copy. Thanks for the tip.
Fallout 3 is still waiting to be finished.

Was good to see you again.
But now I really must take of, or its take away food again.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

must keep alive

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

KnynonMike — GMT

[quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen[/quote]

Well, no, nobody that matters will listen, and if they do, they won't take it seriously. Thats life.[/quote]

if nobody ever complained would we have advance at all no we would still be cavemen
if i complian someone will have to listen will wright posted something its one of the hottest topics [/quote]

If i remember right, he posted to say they were out of line with the lynch mob they were forming.

Also, complaining isn't the cornerstone of society. Aside from the occasional revolution over a major issue, it has little use.

Feedback has more uses. By that i mean saying "I think spore would be better with this this and this" not "OMG spore SPORE, i hat u guyz for making it for 2 yearlds!!11"[/quote]
Totallly

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=KnynonMike][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=klawz]will you effin' get over theguy145 already?
SMN, please lock this![/quote]don't lock this please this thread was the start of science spore [/quote]

Any way you cut it, science spore is not going to happen. It is better to concentrate on what we want in the inevitable wave of expansion packs.[/quote]
you want to pay 1000 of what ever money they use where you live just to get the full game?????? [/quote]

I don't want to pay anything at all, but thats not the way it works. We would all like to live in a system in which the seller doesn't screw over the buyer, but we can't. If they don't produce good expansions, then i will stop playing. Not out of protest, but because i would have moved on to another game.

Just for fun, If your figure includes the original i bought for $50, and the expansion packs cost $30, that means 31 expansions for $1000 . [/quote]
i know but i just can't give up if i keep complaining someone has to listen[/quote]

Well, no, nobody that matters will listen, and if they do, they won't take it seriously. Thats life.[/quote]

if nobody ever complained would we have advance at all no we would still be cavemen
if i complian someone will have to listen will wright posted something its one of the hottest topics [/quote]

If i remember right, he posted to say they were out of line with the lynch mob they were forming.

Also, complaining isn't the cornerstone of society. Aside from the occasional revolution over a major issue, it has little use.

Feedback has more uses. By that i mean saying "I think spore would be better with this this and this" not "OMG spore SPORE, i hat u guyz for making it for 2 yearlds!!11"[/quote]
Totallly[/quote]
i have been saying both of those things
" not "OMG spore SPORE, i hat u guyz for making it for 2 yearlds!!11" i don't write like that i just can't be bothered to put a capital i

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Megazear7 — GMT

Maxis, please tell me the next expansion will have...

morphology
ecosystems
space fleets
niches instead of of fields of static animals sitting on nests
natural selection (atleast on hard mode)

even if its a lie, just tell me your working on it

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

[quote=Megazear7]Maxis, please tell me the next expansion will have...

morphology
ecosystems
space fleets
niches instead of of fields of static animals sitting on nests
natural selection (atleast on hard mode)

even if its a lie, just tell me your working on it[/quote]
that what i want this is not about getting my way i want to make a difference against ea I've never done anything with my life i am not like other science spore supporter who give up after 5 minutes of flaming i will never stop

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

bump

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

starwars714 — GMT

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=starwars714]Should maxis make science spore? gosh where have you been?! of course they should![/quote]

*facepalm*

RocketGirl STARTED the "Bring Back Science Spore" movement. Please learn to look at posting dates. Thanks.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Mythalinear — GMT

Ah yes, our good friend RocketGirl. As much as I love the posts and the stand in agreement with the well articulated angst and disappointment brought about by SPORE... I don't think MAXIS is going to listen to the small group on the forums when all they have to do is look to see millions and millions of creations that keep growing. They have their prize. Maybe in another ten years they will make Science SPORE... if someone doesn't beat them to it.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

MinionJoe — GMT

[quote=Mythalinear]I don't think MAXIS is going to listen to the small group on the forums ...[/quote]

Which is why most of that small group left. Spore found its target audience, and Spore's long-time followers were not it.

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

i'm one of the last ones left
and i will keep this thread going

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

piePIEpie — GMT

bump

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

Whats the point of keeping this thread going if the science spore community has, for the most part, moved on?

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

goombadude — GMT

if they released science spore. is it possible to say no?! of course! that would be a dream come true!

piePIEpie — GMT

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

Vilageidiotx — GMT

[quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx][quote=piePIEpie][quote=Vilageidiotx]Most necroed thread ever.[/quote]it shouldn't have died in the first place[/quote]

Apparently it should have, because it did.[/quote]thats the weirdest logic ive ever heard[/quote]

When there is nothing left to say, people will stop posting, and the thread dies. The message is irrelevant, this isn't a billboard, this is a forum. For conversation.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

CrazyShyness — GMT

If it should have stayed alive, it would have. As it turns out, right now no one wants to keep this alive except you piePIEpie. One is hardly a crowd on a thread. Goodbye.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

twister753 — GMT

I would like it, but they won't, the Market isn't big enough compared to the market of what Spore is now. We need to count on a non-corporate indy developer to make Science Spore, actually, I am working on one right now, I am an inexperienced game maker and it won't be very good, but I'm doing something, a campaign won't work.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

gamedude88 — GMT

nope, they just don't have the money to do that in this kind of economy...

Should Maxis make Science Spore?

DrPayne666 — GMT

SPORE, EA has a crapload of money. We certainly will not get our dream if you do not SPORE about it!

Go Go Go, Power Necromancers!!!

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

sllythe8 — GMT

when i bought spore i thought it would be the 2005 science spore the only thing i like on the spore they sold is the creator witch is kind of lousy.

Re:Should Maxis make Science Spore?

william98 — GMT

[quote=sllythe8]when i bought spore i thought it would be the 2005 science spore the only thing i like on the spore they sold is the creator witch is kind of lousy.[/quote] It's not that spore isn't good, it is, it's just that it could be [i]sooo[/i] much better! I mean, really, what ever happened to the game we all saw! Also, as I said before, it's not that it isn't good, it was just destroyed by a horrible thing called [b][u]Hipe[/b][/u]!