It has been nearly two years since Spore was released, and I still find the bitter taste of disappointment lingering in my mouth. Never before or since in my lengthy gaming career have I been so utterly disappointed by a game. I say this as someone who has played practically every game developed by Will Wright since I got my hands on SimCity at the age of 8. What was it that I loved about those games, even as a young child? What was it that kept me glued to the computer for 10 hours managing city zoning ordinances, ant colonies, or even farm production? It was complexity, depth, and a focus on the topic at hand that allowed actual insight into the way these systems work in the real world.
A lack of focus on a single topic is one of Spore's major weaknesses. Will Wright had a grand vision of a game that would cover everything, inspired as he was by Powers of Ten. By trying to cover five dissimilar types of play, he ended up with a game that produced essentially zero new and compelling game play (beyond the creature designer, which is cool but kinda pointless without actual gameplay). Could warfare/diplomacy/trade in the tribal, civilization, and space stages really compete with other 4X games that focus exclusively on those subjects? Should the simplistic Spore even be mentioned in the same sentence as the deeply compelling game play present in classics like Civilization, Master of Orion, Galactic Civilizations, or any of the other fantastic games in this genre? Would anyone compare building a city in Spore favorably to building a city in any of the SimCity games?
What I wanted from Spore was a game that deeply explored how creatures and ecosystems evolve. The creature stage is only one I cared about, perhaps because no one has ever really made a game about it with the same focus that drives my interest in Sim games. The cell stage is a fun little game that could serve as a good lead-in to the creature stage, and the tribal stage could perhaps serve as a brief denouement once your species achieved intelligence. If I had my way, 80% of the meat of the game would take place during a greatly expanded creature stage. The final two stages would be eliminated entirely, or perhaps be pushed off into sequels for which an appropriate amount of development time could be devoted to making them good.
Making the game cute and completely baby friendly removed a lot of the depth I loved about previous Sim games. I want to design and perfect complex systems, not play around in a colorful toybox! A cartoony or cute style can work as long as it's backed by solid gameplay; just look at TF2. A cute style backed by shallow gameplay, on the other hand, is simply fluff. Fluff games can be fun for a few minutes, in the same way that one might occasionally want a marshmallow fluff sandwich on Wonderbread, but if I'm not playing a game at work or on my cell phone I'd rather eat steak. Based on the games Will Wright produced when he had near total control over development, I'd like to think that he is also the kind of person who likes to eat steak. While it's certainly possible to make loads of money peddling a shallow game for kids, I like to think it would be more satisfying to produce a game that could keep adults engaged for weeks at a time.
When I play a Maxis game, I want to learn something. At the very least I want to imagine my 13-year-old self learning something if he were to play it. I wanted a game that dove head first into the fields of evolution and ecology. I don't think it's impossible to make a game that would be both a load of fun and scientifically accurate enough to be used as a tool for teaching introductory biology classes. I'm not advocating a game that perfectly simulates life, makes you sit there and simply watch creatures evolve without your interference, or any other nonsense. What I am advocating is a game in which at least a modicum of scientific accuracy is maintained.
I want the "creature game" to feel more like a real ecosystem, rather than a series of tedious minigames. I want creature fitness to be affected by nearly every decision made in its design. I want creature morphology and size to affect fitness. I want there to be variation of individuals within a species. I want to model courtship displays/rituals, reproduction, and childrearing (though I don't want to design genitals or watch my species fucking on screen- compromises to taste do have to be made). I want to manage tradeoffs in the costs associated with creature abilities like muscle mass, food requirements, movement modes, movement speed, brainpower and associated behaviors, sense organs, and any special creature abilities (claws, venom, fur, plumage, camouflage, scales, and so on). I want my creature to slowly develop from generation to generation, and I want vestigial organs and evolutionary spandrels. I want to lay down organs like municipal buildings in SimCity, nerves and arteries like power lines and roads, and muscle tissue like industrial zones.
Even with all this complexity, the game could still retain the pure sandbox play of the original. Many Sim games already draw a distinction between sandbox play and a more constrained style of play. In SimAnt or SimEarth you could enter experimental mode, where you were granted limitless control over the simulation. In the same way, the creature creator could be directly accessed to create bizarre or impossible creatures without affecting the more difficult game portion. Varying levels of difficulty could either reduce the complexity by eliminating the need for certain organ systems or loosen requirements to allow preposterous creatures.
It's pretty much impossible for Spore to ever become the kind of game I once hoped it would be, no matter how many expansions are released. My probably-overly-optimistic hope is that Will Wright or someone like him will someday release a game that covers evolution in a way that is aimed at adults.
Anyone else have similar thoughts about Spore? Anyone vehemently disagree with me?
A lack of focus on a single topic is one of Spore's major weaknesses. Will Wright had a grand vision of a game that would cover everything, inspired as he was by Powers of Ten. By trying to cover five dissimilar types of play, he ended up with a game that produced essentially zero new and compelling game play (beyond the creature designer, which is cool but kinda pointless without actual gameplay). Could warfare/diplomacy/trade in the tribal, civilization, and space stages really compete with other 4X games that focus exclusively on those subjects? Should the simplistic Spore even be mentioned in the same sentence as the deeply compelling game play present in classics like Civilization, Master of Orion, Galactic Civilizations, or any of the other fantastic games in this genre? Would anyone compare building a city in Spore favorably to building a city in any of the SimCity games?
What I wanted from Spore was a game that deeply explored how creatures and ecosystems evolve. The creature stage is only one I cared about, perhaps because no one has ever really made a game about it with the same focus that drives my interest in Sim games. The cell stage is a fun little game that could serve as a good lead-in to the creature stage, and the tribal stage could perhaps serve as a brief denouement once your species achieved intelligence. If I had my way, 80% of the meat of the game would take place during a greatly expanded creature stage. The final two stages would be eliminated entirely, or perhaps be pushed off into sequels for which an appropriate amount of development time could be devoted to making them good.
Making the game cute and completely baby friendly removed a lot of the depth I loved about previous Sim games. I want to design and perfect complex systems, not play around in a colorful toybox! A cartoony or cute style can work as long as it's backed by solid gameplay; just look at TF2. A cute style backed by shallow gameplay, on the other hand, is simply fluff. Fluff games can be fun for a few minutes, in the same way that one might occasionally want a marshmallow fluff sandwich on Wonderbread, but if I'm not playing a game at work or on my cell phone I'd rather eat steak. Based on the games Will Wright produced when he had near total control over development, I'd like to think that he is also the kind of person who likes to eat steak. While it's certainly possible to make loads of money peddling a shallow game for kids, I like to think it would be more satisfying to produce a game that could keep adults engaged for weeks at a time.
When I play a Maxis game, I want to learn something. At the very least I want to imagine my 13-year-old self learning something if he were to play it. I wanted a game that dove head first into the fields of evolution and ecology. I don't think it's impossible to make a game that would be both a load of fun and scientifically accurate enough to be used as a tool for teaching introductory biology classes. I'm not advocating a game that perfectly simulates life, makes you sit there and simply watch creatures evolve without your interference, or any other nonsense. What I am advocating is a game in which at least a modicum of scientific accuracy is maintained.
I want the "creature game" to feel more like a real ecosystem, rather than a series of tedious minigames. I want creature fitness to be affected by nearly every decision made in its design. I want creature morphology and size to affect fitness. I want there to be variation of individuals within a species. I want to model courtship displays/rituals, reproduction, and childrearing (though I don't want to design genitals or watch my species fucking on screen- compromises to taste do have to be made). I want to manage tradeoffs in the costs associated with creature abilities like muscle mass, food requirements, movement modes, movement speed, brainpower and associated behaviors, sense organs, and any special creature abilities (claws, venom, fur, plumage, camouflage, scales, and so on). I want my creature to slowly develop from generation to generation, and I want vestigial organs and evolutionary spandrels. I want to lay down organs like municipal buildings in SimCity, nerves and arteries like power lines and roads, and muscle tissue like industrial zones.
Even with all this complexity, the game could still retain the pure sandbox play of the original. Many Sim games already draw a distinction between sandbox play and a more constrained style of play. In SimAnt or SimEarth you could enter experimental mode, where you were granted limitless control over the simulation. In the same way, the creature creator could be directly accessed to create bizarre or impossible creatures without affecting the more difficult game portion. Varying levels of difficulty could either reduce the complexity by eliminating the need for certain organ systems or loosen requirements to allow preposterous creatures.
It's pretty much impossible for Spore to ever become the kind of game I once hoped it would be, no matter how many expansions are released. My probably-overly-optimistic hope is that Will Wright or someone like him will someday release a game that covers evolution in a way that is aimed at adults.
Anyone else have similar thoughts about Spore? Anyone vehemently disagree with me?
