Zero Punctuation: Spore

[uzunaruto12]

I'm a huge fan of Zero Punctuation but to me it's been going a tiny bit down hill for a while now but this is defiantly a step in the right direction. Of course I might just be growing out of Zero Punctuation but for the most part I liked this review I personally thought the very long no was funny. I'm defiantly looking forward to tomorrows review.

 

[Solo508]

This review felt shorter and less funnier, maybe its just me but it looks like Zero Puncuation is going downhill.

 

[boholikeu]

Longer, more evolution based gameplay with only a small number of changes allowed between generations. Survivability derived more from design then prepackaged parts. Longer legs run faster but get injured more, or some such. Gameplay based more on experiment with failed designs and death actually having some consequence. Rewards for creativity with prepackaged parts. Combine a mouth and a claw, get a creature that bites and slashes at the same time. Senses with some meaning. No eyes means you can't see. Eyes on the back of the head maybe put little arrows on the screen. Noses find far off fruit or prey.

Well that certainly would be a more challenging and realistic game. I still don't think it's the type of game Spore was advertised as being, since their whole campaign was more "make your own world the way you want it to be" as opposed to "see what it takes to make your creature survive".

If the designers wanted to make a 3D design program, that's how they should have sold it.

You're getting into some deeply silly semantics here, and I'm not going to follow you. Spore was sold as an evolution sim.

Here's the commercial, you tell me how they were selling the game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDUIDO-Njho

Not to mention, the entire point of the GDC speech where he first announced Spore was that he wanted to make a game that helped players be more creative:

"I want to lure players into being creative," Wright explained. "Games like Pokemon with their elaborate rule sets. offer a sense of mastery. But imagine if you could create the monsters from scratch!" As Wright showed off some more examples of procedurally created models and textures, he again noted how the computer analyzed the system before it and made the stuff to go with it: models, textures, and behaviors. "Eventually, you get this elaborate thing. This is a creative amplification of the creator's efforts."

http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2005/features/20050315/postcard-diamante.htm

Though Will Wright often noted that the game was based on evolution, he never said it would be a strict simulation of it:

"We have a lot of low-level concepts and ideas. But at the end of the day, what I really wanted players to feel was motivation and interest in the subjects that Spore is built on top of. It's not so much that Spore is trying to educate them and teach them about astronomy or evolution, but I want them to understand the context of that. You know? All the sciences, and why that's cool and interesting."

"GameSpy: In other words to inspire them? To find out more on their own?

Wright: Yeah, I'd say it's more an inspirational agenda than an educational agenda."

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/894/894149p1.html

I also imagine that's part of the reason they changed the name from "Sim Everything" to "Spore".

Suuure... but don't you think that's kind a ridiculous thing to say given it's a computer game? I mean, evolution is constant improvement over millions of generations. So if you wanted to make a game in which the player took control of those adaptations, as opposed to those millions of generations doing it themselves... yeah it would violate evolution. One might say it would more simulate evolution though.

Fair enough, but if I wanted to make an evolution game, and not a creationist game, I would have the player control the environmental pressures, not the actual creature changes. That would still make for a very interesting game IMO.

Yes, I got it. I forget sometimes no one can hear me say things to the screen. Should have read: "'"Creationist" simulator'???????? Ergh..."

Hehe sorry, but I still have no clue what emotion you were trying to convey. I'm kind of imagining a "wtf?!" voice though. Let me know if I've got it or not =).

Anyway, like I said, Will Wright himself admitted that the gameplay is resembles creationism much more than it does evolution. There have also been a number of articles about this as well.

I think Yahtzee is just more of a violent person then you or me. He's right about the whole thing after the creature phase. It's much much harder to stay peaceful after you're settled. Same was true of humans.

At the very least the AI becomes much more aggressive if you go down the violent path. I guess it's kind of debatable as to whether this makes the game more difficult, but I've seen a number of forum threads complaining about the difficulty if you play as a warmongering race.

 

[Vicious Hallway]

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.

I look at Spore as a creative platform, especially given the wide customization available. At the time of writing this now I have played Spore for the last few days, probably for a total of six hours or so. Having played it and explored what it can do in the first couple of sections, I felt that the creature stage was what appealed to me most, and could have been much more (but I won't get into that now), and while I had some issues with the interface and a few aspects of gameplay I, in general, am quite pleased to have purchased the game. For those wishing to view my fail, my spore ID is ViciousHallway.

I for one had a great time just running around killing loads of other species in one game, then running about making nice with them all in my next game. Tribal and Civ' stages seemed a bit fiddly to me, but I'll save my opinion for the space era once I've messed about with it a bit more.

I liked the creature parts, my father (who is an FPS/action/what-have-you gamer) intensely disliked Spore, but then again he's always hated sim games. My brother (14), who actually purchased the game, has been enjoying it immensely, particularly the tribal stages and onward. As an added plus, my eight year old brother can also get some entertainment from it, which has us all pleased.

 

[boholikeu]

It's hilarious to me that you continue to go into this semantics game, when I've said I'm not going to follow you, and when you're "proof" really isn't showing what you seem to think it's showing. Strict or not, everything you point to says "evolution sim."

I don't understand how you can call this a "silly semantics discussion". From my understanding, semantics is basically a argument over the exact meaning of a word or sentence. For example, our earlier argument over whether Spore is a game or a 3D modeling program was silly semantics, because it really doesn't matter either way.

When we argue over the message of an ad campaign or the point of a speech we're not arguing semantics any more than if we were talking about the summary of a book. You say that the proof I'm showing doesn't really prove what I think it does. Why not? When you give a keynote address about a game and spend 60% of the speech talking about user-generated content and 10% talking about how it loosely models evolution, it tells me that the main focus of the game is going to be creating things. When the ad campaign for a game shows us a number of possibilities and then asks us "How will you create the universe?" as opposed to focusing on the competitive/scientific aspects of the game, it tells me that this games is about creation, not simulation.

Sorry, but I hope you can understand why dismissing that as a "silly semantics argument" strikes me as a little glib. I will grant you that many third-party gaming magazine previews made this game out to be a more detailed evolution simulation, so I can totally understand how you could have different expectations. However, if you look at what Maxis and Will Wright have been saying about the game since 2005, it pretty much matches the game we have today.

 

[anti_strunt]

It's hilarious to me that you continue to go into this semantics game, when I've said I'm not going to follow you, and when you're "proof" really isn't showing what you seem to think it's showing. Strict or not, everything you point to says "evolution sim."

I don't understand how you can call this a "silly semantics discussion". From my understanding, semantics is basically a argument over the exact meaning of a word or sentence. For example, our earlier argument over whether Spore is a game or a 3D modeling program was silly semantics, because it really doesn't matter either way.

So, does this mean that 3D Studio Max is a better game than Spore? After all, it has a much superior sandbox mode - you can create literally anything! I've heard it's only for hardcore gamers though; I think it's big in Korea?

 

[boholikeu]

So, does this mean that 3D Studio Max is a better game than Spore? After all, it has a much superior sandbox mode - you can create literally anything! I've heard it's only for hardcore gamers though; I think it's big in Korea?

Ha ha. =)

I think people that are making the Spore/3D Studio Max comparison are kind of missing the point... The creators in Spore are embedded into the game as a whole, and they contribute to the gameplay in that they help personalize the experience. Some people find 3D Studio Max fun to mess around in, but the fact that the creative process clearly lacks that greater purpose is what makes it a tool and not a game.

I'm surprised that very few people compare the CC demo to 3D Studio Max though. It'd be much easier to argue that the CC is a tool/toy than to argue that Spore is.

 

[anti_strunt]

So, does this mean that 3D Studio Max is a better game than Spore? After all, it has a much superior sandbox mode - you can create literally anything! I've heard it's only for hardcore gamers though; I think it's big in Korea?

Ha ha. =)

I think people that are making the Spore/3D Studio Max comparison are kind of missing the point... The creators in Spore are embedded into the game as a whole, and they contribute to the gameplay in that they help personalize the experience. Some people find 3D Studio Max fun to mess around in, but the fact that the creative process clearly lacks that greater purpose is what makes it a tool and not a game.

I'm surprised that very few people compare the CC demo to 3D Studio Max though. It'd be much easier to argue that the CC is a tool/toy than to argue that Spore is.

I wasn't actually aware of anyone making the Spore/3D Studio Max comparison except, well, me.

Anyhoo, I haven't bought Spore and have no real plans to do so, primarily because the game seems strangely linear for a supposed "sandbox" game. You must progress from cell to creature to tribe etc. etc. only to found the same pseudo-human civilisation all over again.

While doing it a few times with different wacky creatures might be fun, I would prefer to actually make my own creatures evolve the way I want, in every stage, and not just tread the same path with different-looking houses and spaceships. Creating an underwater civ. would be a nice first step, for instance.

Right now it feels like it would just be like playing the same (rather limited) game over and over with modded graphics, instead of creating a new game as you go along, different every time. Perhaps more functionality will be added with expansions, but I won't fall for that old trick...

Basically, the game does not allow enough creativity...

 

[boholikeu]

I wasn't actually aware of anyone making the Spore/3D Studio Max comparison except, well, me.

Anyhoo, I haven't bought Spore and have no real plans to do so, primarily because the game seems strangely linear for a supposed "sandbox" game. You must progress from cell to creature to tribe etc. etc. only to found the same pseudo-human civilisation all over again.

While doing it a few times with different wacky creatures might be fun, I would prefer to actually make my own creatures evolve the way I want, in every stage, and not just tread the same path with different-looking houses and spaceships. Creating an underwater civ. would be a nice first step, for instance.

Right now it feels like it would just be like playing the same (rather limited) game over and over with modded graphics, instead of creating a new game as you go along, different every time. Perhaps more functionality will be added with expansions, but I won't fall for that old trick...

Basically, the game does not allow enough creativity...

Actually, the comparison is a pretty common response to people (like me) that say the creators are the main focus of the gameplay.

You're right though, that the main evolutionary path is pretty linear. I don't mind this so much (I've still been able to sandbox with a number of things in the game), but I can that understand people who want more direct consequences for their actions wouldn't be particularly interested in the game.

 

[ianuam]

Watched the review, disagreed, thought it was fun. Went back on EVE. Played for a few hours more.. Yahtzee's wisdom seeped in, i now see his point of view.

 

[Mogif]

I'll have to agree with the review with most things. Spore is only fun when your in a calm not serious mood and in the mood to screw around with nature. =P Its just a stress releasing game.

 

[nought_0]

Hey, who remembers playing movie tie-ins & such on the 8-bit zx spectrum?
-Press play on tape, wait five minutes, play shit minigame, press play on tape, wait five minutes, play shit mingame, repeat until suicidal.

-ooh, it takes me back.

 

[artstsym]

That was a 16 second NO. Impressive.

 

[titaniumwombat]

Thank you for saving me from exploring this game. A digital junky friend of mine tried to lure me in but I held off, assuming this would be on your radar. Great review!

 

[RebelPuck]

I agree that the first 4 levels seem like just a overblown character creator screen, but the game is still quite fun i think, bit less than a classic, but far more that an once in a while time killer. MY NEW SOLITARE: Spore

 

[ObamaRama7]

Spore???? What if that show Paranormal State were actually made by a bunch of pussies??? http://tinyurl.com/5eqbxl