Comments on: Spore: It’s Made Of People

By: Mr_FJ

Mr_FJ — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:50:58 +0000

SimNothing is going to be an infinite black space where you use an upgraded (extremely upgraded and evolved) version of the spore editor(s), to make whatever you want!

Planets, stars, creatures, space armadas, atmospheres in the middle of nothing? and all with as much realism as possible.

But realisme shouldn’t be viewed as a restraint! You create your own Realism! if you choose to make a creature that can’t survive in oxygen, but thrives in free space, you can!

If you choose to make a planet where the air, the creatures breath, makes them grow, you can!

Oh and ofcourse it should be easy as dell to make new parts and colours and physics and everything! :)
Hmm a great name… Hmm… How about… MPCSR… Make Play Change Share Redo… :)

Repost with credits for great justice!
-Mr_FJ

By: Trithne

Trithne — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:14:42 +0000

Kommissar Nicko, you’re not alone.

By: Kommissar Nicko

Kommissar Nicko — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:44:17 +0000

I don’t really understand why most gamers these days need to justify their sport by doing so with other people. To me, a good AI makes a game infinitely replayable. This is because I am the only gamer left with a honest, sincere, and passionate hatred for other people.

By: lordofthunder

lordofthunder — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:34:25 +0000

Bold steps and innovations. I can only hope the developers manages to do more than bombard the public with impressive ‘cosmetics’ to toy with.
At least this cosmetic, disney like approach might have a side-effect: there’s little reference to determine how creatures are going to react or even what kind of skills they have or don’t have just because the shape and look do little for a creature. It’s not going to be easy to make decisions in a whole new world, which probably might even feel unnatural but the human species has allways been curious in nature.

The article is probably right, eventually “it’s all about the people”. Spore is what an individual player will make of it just like in the creature creator.
Type in ‘human’ as a search word in the sporeopedia to see how different individuals really can be…

A few billion years of evolution has learned me for example i’ll enjoy kicking some of those creatures labeled ‘humans’ from my home planet to cyberspace and i’ll continue to chase them there. The last kind of space where a mouse works better than a gps ^^

By: BarGamer

BarGamer — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:12:43 +0000

SimNothing = An empty box. With amusing system requirements, description of contents, and back-cover description.

Also, a coupon for the DVD release of Kungfu Panda. XDDD

By: Andrew Doull

Andrew Doull — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:44:05 +0000

I definitely agree that your appearance shouldn’t affect your game-play which is, as already discussed here, one of the great failings of most MMORPGs.

But just having ‘a couple of dominant builds’ does not a great game make. If you look at, say Starcraft or Street Fighter II Turbo, there is a great balance – or perhaps tension is a better word – between a large variety of different strategies and tactics. The balance between rush-turtle-tech in an RTS or characters in a fighting game requires lots of iterative development and a dash of luck with a willingness to sacrifice aesthetic to game play.

This does not prevent anyone messing around with sub-optimal strategies, like exploring every leaf of the tech tree, or creating the Tower Defense sub-genre or making machinima – but it helps a lot to have a great game in the mix as well. And having consequences to your choices seems to be the best way to ensure that game play.

Not being negative, just crossing my fingers and hoping…

By: Pod

Pod — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:24:47 +0000

RPS in “Exposing who writes which Edge articles” SHOCKER.

By: Kieron Gillen

Kieron Gillen — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:58:10 +0000

“I don’t think your specific design SHOULD affect the end abilities too much, or you have a “best” way of doing things that precludes other more creative, fun, or just weird options. You’d end up with a couple dominant builds and an infinite amount of other perhaps cooler but “defective” designs.”

Quoted, as this is core, I think. There’s certainly a great game to be made about evolutionary design. I don’t think Spore was ever trying to be it. It concentrates in other areas.

By: Babs

Babs — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:11:16 +0000

I’ve been much more optimistic about it since Soren joined the team. That man really understands the importance of meaningful gamplay decisions.

Also, this is the best piece I read on Spore, and it’s forced me to pre-order so I can get the full-on initial excitement. Nice one RPS!

By: Andrew Doull

Andrew Doull — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:43 +0000

Having played around with the Space prototype, my biggest worry is the lack of player agency. Because there were multiple different ways of doing things like terraforming planets, there didn’t seem to be any particular advantage or disadvantage to any approach. I could just flatten all the mountains and raise all the seas until they got to the altitude that was right for the species I was carrying in my cargo holds, and then seed the planet and watch the plants and animals happily expand across the surface.

I really hope they cracked the bear of the problem of making the game interactions meaningful. Because it seems like even two years ago, they were doing things the wrong way around: pretty as opposed to deep.

By: Lead Enema

Lead Enema — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:19:35 +0000

“I keeping hearing that no mater how terrible your design it’ll function everything is cosmetic”

I’d say this is the beauty of it, and in my opinion your saying this derogatorily isn’t giving credit where credit is due. I think the creature creator is amazing in that most stuff you can come up with works reasonably well.

Seems to me the choice is between a huge variety of possible creations and limiting the scope (less building blocks and allowable hardpoints) but making the limited choices you have more specific. Think of it like legos: old school lego users made due with the basic blocks and built whatever they wanted, even if it didn’t look exactly like they would’ve wanted. Then come licensed sets with specific pieces; sure your spaceship now has wings and guns but those purpose-built pieces can only ever be wings or guns.

I don’t think your specific design SHOULD affect the end abilities too much, or you have a “best” way of doing things that precludes other more creative, fun, or just weird options. You’d end up with a couple dominant builds and an infinite amount of other perhaps cooler but “defective” designs.

Another factor is that they seem to have prioritized as a design goal low system requirements. A low barrier of entry allows more creators, which again allows for more variety. I’m sure they could increase the complexity limit and make full use of the most powerful hardware available but in the end that just makes the landscape smaller and thus duller for everyone.

I just think it’s premature to write off the game before we see what actually happens with it. A sandbox game, in the end, is only as fun as the person with the bucket.

By: Heliocentric

Heliocentric — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:27:25 +0000

amazing? I keeping hearing that no mater how terrible your design it’ll function everything is cosmetic. So its all window dressing. Window dressing with no multiplayer. Sure shared content, which is shared window dressing. I’m not excited about this game beyond the scenario’s maxis made. Ever play a city building game? Like children of the nile? That game bored my ass off but i enjoyed it as my choices were meaningful, they resonated within the city.