Zero Punctuation: Spore

[ZEROindividuality]

i can't wait for all the new shity games to come out so i can sit back and blindly follow Yahtzee's orders blindly! (then eventual disobey and cock everything up!)

oh and ya spore was more like a who is the bigger wanker contest than a game.

 

[boholikeu]

I've put off purchasing this game, and I'm sort of glad I have. I have friends who practically mess their pants in sheer delight telling me how addictive it is, and others who have played it and claim they would find watching paint dry to be a more entertaining use of time. All this review has done is confirm what the latter category has been telling me all along.

Simple gauge of how much you will like the game:

Do you like creative gameplay? You you need to have objectives to have fun?

If you need to "win" a game to enjoy it then you probably won't like Spore. Ditto if you are expecting Spore to be an action game or RTS.

Let me ask you a question. Does attaching more legs to your creature make it run faster. Does more claws make it fight better. More eyes make it see better. No. See, the only way you increase your creatures survivability is by finding better parts to nail to it. That is the driving "gameplay mechanic" of Spore. Essentially anything you do in the creature editor is completely arbitrary. You could nail your better parts anywhere on the creature and boom. Suddenly it's a better creature. And you could take your snake creature, and next generation turn it into a bear, next generation turn it into a horse. Ect. Ect. Ect. By not making the creature editor more ridged, more evolution based, and by not giving penalties for making a creature that could not survive, Spore defiantly lets creativity take over. And like I said, that's not a bad thing. But it removes any element from the editor that could be considered gameplay, and makes the actual gameplay element (finding better parts) feel tacked on.

No, the above changes you mentioned do not affect you creature in any way, but that does not mean that creature design has no bearing on stats, either. I wouldn't want every design aspect of my creature to affect its stats, or else I wouldn't be able to make the kind of creature I wanted. The type of game that you are talking about would throw creativity away in lieu of flat strategic gameplay. As it is now I can usually design the style I want, and then hide parts in the creature to artificially raise its stats if I so desire. If every aspect of my creature contributed to its stats I might not be able to do that.

Also, you entire post is still under the misconception that a given aspect of the game has to affect your ability to "win" in order to be considered gameplay. Most game designers don't hold such a narrow view of gameplay, and game reviewers shouldn't, either.

 

[boholikeu]

Ok, let's not get off in la-la-land and pretend things are true about Spore that aren't. Creature design has no bearing on stats at all. Tacking on better parts does. See, when you admit that you've had to hide those better parts in your design, you're pointing out the problem for me. If the editor was an element of the gameplay of Spore, then you yourself would be able to do things in the editing of your creature that improved it. Now, I think everyone here can see that if that were an element of Spore, it would not result in flat strategic gameplay, but a balance between the strategic and the creative. A great one, and something far closer to the "transcendent life simulator" promised.

Ah okay, I see what you're saying now. I still disagree that basing stats on design would make a better sandbox game. For example, let's imagine that the game took into account where you aim the "spitting" parts. Currently, I like to hide them in the creature's mouth, and most of the time they are facing the other way. If that design element mattered in Spore I'd constantly have creatures that shot acid out of the back of their heads.

Also, sometimes I want to make improbable creatures. My war-mongering race is a tiny, fluffy little hamster creature with max stats. If creature size or leg length mattered in regards to the creature's stats, my creature would be the exact opposite of what I want him to be. I love the fact that I can hide parts in my creature to determine its stats because I feel like it frees me creatively. Your system just wouldn't let me do that.

What exactly have you been prevented from making with the current system? If you give me a specific example, perhaps I can help you out.

You really shouldn't read things into what I write, by the way. Nothing I've said implies I think Spore needs some kind of "winning" to have gameplay. But Spore was sold as an evolution simulator. Evolution means constant improvement.

Sorry, I've just been talking to so many people that think Spore should have been a RTS instead of a sandbox game =) Anyway, I always thought Spore was sold more as a "create your own galaxy game". At least, that's what I got from the commercials. If it really were an evolution simulation you wouldn't have any direct control over the changes in your creature. Instead, you'd probably have to evolve you creature the way you wanted by exposing your creature to certain environmental pressures. It'd be quite a different game from what Spore is now (Right now it's more of a "creationist" simulator, so it makes sense that it doesn't follow many of the tenets of evolution).

Now, the form of improvement you're aiming for should be decided by you alone, regardless of whatever you think that might mean, or not mean. What I'm saying is that the editor should have allowed you to do things to get there. Things more creative then tacking on prepackaged parts. As it sits, the editor is just a 3D design program, with nothing to do with Spore's finding parts gameplay, and that makes the experience somewhat empty.

I dunno, I still disagree. Finding better parts unlocks new or more powerful abilities for your creature, and the parts are often unlocked by performing related actions (socializing or fighting, for example). It's definitely very simplistic, but I don't see much of a difference between this and what you are talking about.

 

[JonahNYC]

Okay, I'm calling Ben on this one. As an actual game reviewer since 1997, I'm going to have to say this:

Ben didn't play Spore for more than 2 hours.

It's odd Ben would love The Sims but not Spore, since the former title is a massive micromanagement time sink. In addition, poor Ben thinks the entire game is be carnivore or herbivore (wrong). He also is quite wrong regarding the attack/befriend - it's actually EASIER to befriend other creatures and tribes in the Creature and Tribal phase, and MUCH easier to use commerce to buy other cities in the Civ phase. Honestly, one of the issues in the game is that if you decide to be warlike in the Tribal phase, you'll have problems trying to protect your tribe while attacking the other at the same time, and the other tribe is almost always better prepared, even with the special abilities. It's far easier to stop them in their tracks when they're attacking or stroll into their camp regardless of how much they DESPISE you. Most of his review would be laughed at by people who actually played the game more than once.

Sorry, Ben, but you're falling under Roger Ebert Disease. I remember going to a film screening and Ebert fell asleep after 15 minutes of the film - and based his subsequent review on the first 15 minutes.

And before you dismiss me as some sort of "Spore fanboy", I'm not. My own review will be critical, but, you know, for REAL issues.

Spore is one of the most difficult games to review ever (check Jason Ocampo's IGN review), and Ben basically seems to have based his review on 2-3 hours and reading other reviews. I'm still trying to make a reasoned, accurate review myself.

 

[Wargamer]

Having arsed around on a friend's copy of Spore, I can confirm Yahtzee seems to have utterly fucked up on certain points. I actually did very well as a vegetarian (okay, technically an Omnivore), and short of trying to take on something 50x my size I was never "running away all the time" like he suggests you have to.

And yet, it's not really a fun game. I did have fun playing it this weekend, but I was also pissed for most of this weekend and frankly ANYTHING can be fun when you're pissed. I naturally spent my time giving my creatures a series of very impressive genital growths ranging from tentacle dicks to ten nipples, and it was fun. Drunk, childish fun.

Alas, when I eventually stopped drinking, it was easy to see how empty the game was. It seemed I was never actually penalized for failure - every time I was eaten, I just respawned and tried again until I won. My attempts to befriend certain creatures failed for no discernible reason, and I can only conclude that the game wanted me to do the utterly unthinkable - sacrifice cosmetic design for the sake of "winning" at my goals.

This is not on. Design games are fun because we get to do all manner of things, and create what we want. Yes, I accept that if I want my creature to fly, it needs wings. However, I do NOT accept that I MUST use a SPECIFIC set of wings to attain the SPECIFIC stats I need to befriend the creatures I want to. It would have been a lot better if the "skills" upgrades were not cosmetically restrained.

Overall, I really can't recommend spore. If someone you know buys it, feel free to steal their PC to mess around on it for a day or two, but if you actually spent money on it you'd feel very cheated indeed... unless you plan to become the next Father Jack and never see sobriety again.

 

[Locobato]

Sim City was amazing, I remember playing it for hours. But when the Sims came out it wasn't the same for me. I doubt spore would be worth the time and effort either.

 

[Chimp]

Simple gauge of how much you will like the game:
Do you like creative gameplay? You you need to have objectives to have fun? If you need to "win" a game to enjoy it then you probably won't like Spore. Ditto if you are expecting Spore to be an action game or RTS.

I would have appreciated Spore alot more if it was less shallow than a baby pool though. "Shallow sandbox" is as an effective combo as "tasty shit", "claustrophobic miner", "acrophobic pilot" or... man, I could go on forever. It's alot more fun coming up with awful combos than playing Spore, that's for sure. It has so little sand in it you can't even build a frigging castle, not even a tiny one, you just end up with different piles of sand. Very shallow sand.

Just because the competitors were cinematic abortions doesn't mean the originals weren't good. Remember, back then the expectation was to stick as close to the comic as possible, which is why the fact that he could still pull out a serious film is so impressive. Batman Begins was a great movie, but it didn't hit me on an emotional level like Returns did at the time. Two hit movies that more or less stand the test of time is a major accomplishment, last time I checked.

Come on, unless you are alot older than me, your eye for a good movie was as flawed back then as mine. Today, I can reassuredly acknowledge that Police Academy 1-6 was NOT a good set of movies worth having on VCR, watching at least one of them every second day. Star Wars 4-6 are still awesome though, but that's beside the point. Batman Returns brings great nostalgia to you and that's all there is to it.

 

[TaboriHK]

Nope, I stand by my guns. Returns was a great movie, considering the standards it was confined to. The first one wasn't spectacular, I will concede.

 

[chomesuke]

Generally funny review, as always!
But with one issue, I now play spore on a weekly basis(and by this iI mean every-couple-of-days-a-couple-of-hours), and i am really, really enjoying myself with the way carnivores play.
Just try it, take up a random carnivore in the creature fase, and completely destroy all sentient life on the ''planet'' except for your own little tribesmen.
there is just no better way to fend off aggression, especially when you're just about to kill somebody's cat out of pure frustration.

And by limiting your play time 'till a couple of hours max, the major flaws of the game won't get to you.

At least this worked for me!

All typo's on my account, sorry 'bout that. It's been a busy day, and i'm about to turn in.

 

[boholikeu]

I would have appreciated Spore alot more if it was less shallow than a baby pool though. "Shallow sandbox" is as an effective combo as "tasty shit", "claustrophobic miner", "acrophobic pilot" or... man, I could go on forever. It's alot more fun coming up with awful combos than playing Spore, that's for sure. It has so little sand in it you can't even build a frigging castle, not even a tiny one, you just end up with different piles of sand. Very shallow sand

I disagree here. While the strategic gameplay is certainly limited, I have plenty of things that I still want to try in the game. Maybe you just got fed up with the simplistic minigames, and it sucked the desire to be creative out of you?

As the editor currently sits, yes. I'm obviously saying the editor should not be as it currently sits.

I'm sorry, but I admit I'm pretty confused as to exactly what you want when it comes to the editor. We've been dancing around the subject for a while now, so can you give me a specific example of what you thought it'd be like?

Well, no. You would have simply been forced to find a some kind of plausible evolutionary route towards that end, such as overwhelming numbers or speed.

Well that there crushes out a large part of the game's creativity aspect. It's pretty clear that the game creators were favoring creative gameplay over a more "realistic" model of evolution. Once again, you're simply asking for a different game from what the developers wanted to make.

Nothing. I'm enjoying making things in this 3D design... and, to be fair, animation program. What I've been prevented from doing is playing a "transcendent life simulator" as promised.

I don't really remember Maxis ever promising us a "transcendent life simulator". Certainly that's what some game review magazines led us to believe in some of their previews, but they were obviously filling in the blanks with their imagination. The most I remember Will Wright saying is that "certain aspects of Spore are based on scientific principles". I never took that as meaning we'd have a full on evolutionary simulation. After all, the player is in control of the creature's changes, which goes completely against one of the basic tenets of evolution.

This complaint reminds me of the people that thought we were going to get five fully-fleshed out games with Spore. Not only is the idea ridiculous from a developer's standpoint, Will Wright repeatedly said that each phase would be like a "very simplified version" of other genre's games. Most people seem to have forgotten that part of the previews and demos.

This is probably the thing that bugs me the most about Spore. Sim City and the Sims were classics because they were so complicated and accurate. Water and power grids, roadways, disaster relief? Social lives, time management, work, hygiene? Will Wright handled all that in a graceful easy to use way. But easy to use or not, you weren't going to able to learn it in 15 minutes. This is a dumbed down game for the coffee break crowd. Yeah, it'd be a different game. It'd be the game we were promised.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the micromanagement systems in the Sims was difficult? I'd be pretty worried about someone that didn't master it within 15 minutes. I found Spore's micromanagement systems much more engaging, which is pretty sad because they are pretty simple as well.

I agree with you about sim city though. It always had a pretty complex micromanagement system (the older versions did at least, the newer one seems to be more along the line with Maxis' current creative gameplay focus in that you aren't punished for making the city you want).

"'Creationist' simulator"????????

Creationist as in Creationism or Independent Design. Spore is a much better model of that than it is of evolution.

I even remember Will Wright admitting this in an interview.

 

[bittman]

I haven't even tried carnivore, and I found herbivore impossibly easy. Cast a special, do 3 nice things and you win. I tried omnivore some parts to kill some stuff, took 5x longer.

ANYWAY!

You used to be funny Yahtzee <- Nah, I won't do that since it's what everyone does when he bashes a game they like. I don't like Spore and I agree with the review, but the week after he reviews a terrible game (Too Human) the following review will always seem less comedic.

Wonder if he'll be bothered reviewing the twenty SIMS-style expansions that are incoming?

 

[boholikeu]

I haven't even tried carnivore, and I found herbivore impossibly easy. Cast a special, do 3 nice things and you win. I tried omnivore some parts to kill some stuff, took 5x longer.

Yeah, this really leads me to believe he didn't play the game that thoroughly. Being violent is much harder than being peaceful in the game.

 

[boholikeu]

Sorry, double post.

 

[bittman]

Maybe it was I who didn't play it for long enough, after all my first five words were "I haven't even tried carnivore". The game got so bad in Tribal and Civilisation though that I refused to play it more/again, so I do emphathise with the pommy aussie.

Speaking of which, I found it impossible to change my alleigance during Civilisation out of Religious when I really wanted Economic instead...

Still, don't know what the complaint is. Spore isn't a game you need to play for more than 5-10 hours to experience everything within it (twice). As mentioned by a game reviewer somewhere else: it's a product and not a game. Like the sims, half of the joy is with your imagination and the attitude you take to the game. Of course, like the sims, it'll probably take 5 expansions for it to be worth picking up again.