Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Featured Article? (todo)

Are we going to try for a Featured Article? I would think we should try for Good Article first - though I don't know if a speculatory article would get considered for either. I'm certainly no expert, so if you guys want to aspire, I'll work right beside you, but I think we are pretty far from FA and GA status right now (I'm currently working on with the teams for the Chicago and Illinois pages to this purpose (albiet in a minor role). Illinois just made it to GA, Chicago has been knocked back for FA a couple times. I guess I'm trying to say it isn't easy, but I'll support that effort if that's what you folk want to do. Robovski 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Initial Impressions

I would just like to say that this game looks amazing. There are only a couple other examples that I could draw from that really come close to what Maxis is attempting to do. There's this game called E.V.O. on the SNES (I never played it) that has you managing the evolution of a critter... instead of your character leveling up and getting new abilities, you can for instance upgrade its fins into land-loving legs. Another example comes from a young-adult book (which is part of a sci-fi series, "The Animorphs") written by K. A. Applegate called "The Ellimist Chronicles". At the beginning of the book we see our hero before his life-altering adventure, playing a Galactic Civilizations game that involves the manipulation of life. I won't spoil things, but the adventure begins once a real alien race discovers the broadcasts of said games, mistaking them for reality. Wouldn't you want to purge the galaxy of such a menace if you were in their shoes? Hopefully Spore's art style and lack of sub-space tunneling communications will keep the same thing from happening here once people start playing Spore! Also it seems there won't be multiplayer, I would love to have my aliens duke it out (or cooperate) with those created by my friends. Anyway, we should be getting lots more information at E3.

I too am looking forward to it, esp. to see whether Wright has a good idea with the procedural stuff (that is, the novelty can be continually generated, and not peter out and become repetitive.). But what do you mean there will be no multiplayer? The podcast certainly made it sound like you'd be able to visit other players' planets. --maru 16:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The game will periodically go onto the net and automatically download stuff made by other players. Apparently next to everything you see in the game will be player made as opposed to being included on the CD. You can even get a little thing that tells you how your creations are doing with other players, how many people have seen them, how many people have destroyed them or made alliances with them, etc. This way, says Wright, you'll be able to play with other player's creations (and they yours), while still being able to do anything you want and not ruining the experience for the other person. Ex. if you're powerful enough, you can blow anyone to smithereens. So it's not true live multiplayer, nope. --24.76.141.128 20:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well- at least there is some semblance of multiplayer; but I can't say it is really surprising. The Sims, if I recall correctly, did the same thing. Too much to hope for a vastly expanded and improved hybrid of sim and RTS I guess. But it still looks good. --maru 12:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sims wasn't automatic, you had to download and upload them to fan sites. Also, a big difference is that the game is supposed to figure out what type of things you need in the environment, before going to the database and grabbing stuff. This includes different types of animals to fill an ecosystem, or planets that are a bit more suitable to your species. This looks like too hard a game to have real multiplayer without cutting back a lot of the really cool sandbox stuff. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot wait! this is just what i'm looking for ^^ bring it on WW!

This game needs to come out sooner. I read a preview in a magazine and it looks awesome. Fall 2006 is too far away! But I do have a qustion. Could really strong players wipe out a plaer's entire species? Or would the game prevent the entire species from being wiped out? Also, would it be possible to accidentally alter other players' worlds? And what would happen if your species died out? Is there a continue, so you don't have to start over? Overall, the game has a wonderful concept. --Mred64 21:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There will probably be nothing stopping you from wiping out an entire species, or altering other player's worlds. This isn't a massive multiplayer game, the changes are not sent back to the original creator of the planet (though they may see it in a status report of sorts). What happens in the game is that all of your content is automatically added to a central database, and other player's stuff is automatically downloaded into your game universe as it is needed. Your little universe is totally seperate from everyone else's. (This article's in my watch list, incase you're wondering about my constant talk-page talking and whatnot.) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I figured it was on some people's watchlist. I added it to mine for updates I so desperately crave and to see if anyone responded to my message. Does anyone know the timescale of the game. Is it going to take several hours just to go beyond the waterdrop or tidepool you start in and into the ocean? Or will it be a moderately paced game that won't make you waits hours or days for advancements? Mred64 03:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging from what Will Wright said during his presentation, the game will probably offer fun in bitesize chunks. You could fire up the game and fiddle around in your tidepool for a bit and before you know it, you advance. As I understood it, there's no necessity to spend hours upon hours doing tedious swimming around before you can get to the next stage. Also, which is one of the best features in my opinion: the player can revert back to any previous stage in the game, without penalty. So if you want to create a second species from the bottom up, you can start them off in the tidepool, and let them evolve while you continue to work on your more advanced species, and later check back on them to steer their further evolution. Theroachman 02:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks like the best game ever and I think it is the most innovative and impressive game. Looks awsome.Tom 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I haven't been this excited about a game for a very long time. Maybe Diablo II: LoD was somewhat close to this level of interest, but I may have to hark all the way back to getting an Intellivision ;-) I hope this comes out on time! Or sooner! The only problem is that I'm going to be a father in a couple months and am going to have to find a spare minute here or there to play. --Kickstart70 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it sounded very much like the Ellimist's specie's game, too. This, though is much more involved (and, in my opinion seems more fun) because you don't instigate a small change then sit back and watch -VetteDude 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, I swear, when I heard about the first black and white I thought it was gonna be something like this. And not to recently I brought up something like this again to a friend of mine... though it involved more than evolution of the species, but which technological paths to take, i.e nano-tech, bio-tech etc. I feel a bit "ripped off" but this looks awesome nonetheless!

I heard about this game about a year ago. I think I heard a bried mentioning of it on television. I forgot where. Anyways, I was excited when I found out more in-depth detail about the games' features. I liked the Sims quite a bit for allowing me to control people, which I know a lot of people would love to do and is probably one of the reasons why people liked it so much. But Spore allows you to control evolution and the outright advancement or extinction of an entire species in a seemingly endless number of possibilities. Your basically the director of character life, you're a god! I've always wanted a game like this! --Vgamer101 19:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Demo scene

Any way, possibly, to mention the Demoscene in reference to procedural content generation, as one of the few current counters to things like the Grand Theft Auto reference in the article? 24.76.141.128 01:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, The last stage of the game, in which the player is in control of a space ship (the UFO) with an interstellar drive, appears to be a giant sandbox mode. The player will be presented with wide-ranging missions similar in game mechanics to Grand Theft Auto. is a bit wacky. The missions are not that similar to GTA's, he likened them more to being like WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$'s minigames. They aren't story driven or any of that. 24.76.141.128 01:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only "missions" in this game are totally open ended, it is totally up to you how you progress though the game, these references to GTA are totally pointless, because GTA is still very "go here, do this, go there, do that, get stat boost, repeat." Whereas you can choose what you want to do, how to do it, what you look like, where you start, how you play the game, pretty much anything you want - you can even make a carnivorous Carebear, if that what appeals to you.

That line about GTA it long gone from the actual article, thankfully. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Link Bickering

I changed the link to Spore World after the anonymous person changed it to Spore Universe by mistake (I just wanted to change the description). Spore World is pretty dern devoid of content, and is horrible site in terms of layout. I don't see a good reason to put it back in... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are rules against self promotion. The person who is continiously re-adding these links is likely tied to them. It is a crappy site with crappy content on a game that has not even been released. All it is trying to do is leach popularity. Can you imagine how crappy wikipedia would be if any shmuck could make a junk shell of a website and link it as a fan to the topic. thus, stupid link deleted again.

--anonymous

Shouldn't there be one fansite though? 'Spore Universe' had been there since June 2005 and I don't see any reason to delete it now.

--aa2

Should the site show demonstrable content, or become a signifigant place of fan activity, then I would support it's inclusion. As it is, Wiki is not about being a web ring or link depository, and while the site is not unrelated, it is largely overtaken by other examples. Things change though, so should they change for the better I'm certain it will be included. Robovski 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It has to have unique content or a significant member count. Otherwise it's just another page that some guy put up. We can't be linking every page that mentions the game, or the links section would take more space than the whole of the rest of the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently undergoing an edit war. I don't have time to keep checking today. If someone would report this if it continues, I'd appreciate it. --Kickstart70·Talk 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Single Player

Spore is not a multi player game! Although it can download other people's creatures, they then become computer AI. Each player owns his own universe, and will never meet another human player. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Didn't Will mention that creatures, buildings, vehicles and planets are being downloaded? (I'll have to watch the video again) Although you'll never meet another player, lots of stuff you encounter will be player-made. Sounds just a tad like asynchronous multiplayer. RoadKillian 10:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of like playing Sims 2; you can download other people's Sims, but the original owner has no control over them. They become AI. Multiplayer means specifically playing with or against a human; if I were to blow up Joe Bloggs's planet, he would suffer no ill effects and it would have no effect on his game except adding a 'Your planet was blown up by Smurrayinchester' message to his his high score chart. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with multiplayer. AT ALL. It's about as multiplayer as installing player-made mods for any other singleplayer game, just that the game does it behind the scenes. If it was multiplayer, that'd mean multiple players can interact with eachother and the environment. In this case that doesn't hold true. Mislabelling it as multiplayer is strongly misleading and should definitely be avoided. Sign up at the GDC website using bollocks data and watch the video if you have problems with that concept. -- 80.135.211.232 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (Ashmodai)

I'm quite aware of all of that, I did watch the GDC video shortly after it became available (and I stuck the URL on the Spore article). The problem is that we're all jumping to conclusions on an unfinished game with presumably many features left to add with some perhaps affecting whether we class it as 'multiplayer'. Consider this (with the known featureset):

1. Two players are happily playing Spore at the same time.
2. The automated content distribution system exchanges content between the two players while they're still playing.
3. The two players expand their empires and now encounter the creatures/buildings/vehicles of the other player.

If this unlikely series of events were to take place, would it appear to be multiplayer to the casual observer? If so, does this make Spore multiplayer in some circumstances? RoadKillian 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, only the designs of the buildings/critters/vehicles are sent across, not the positions of them. You might meet the other empire, but they would just be a random computer controlled civilization with that player's designs. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I understand too, but the point still stands. To a casual observer, would they call this multiplayer? RoadKillian 07:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you call 'Multiplayer' I guess; it seems to be a bit of a grey area. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hence the argument. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. RoadKillian 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm normally just a passive observer here, but I would like to add that Wright himself had once also described the game as "asynchronous multiplayer." I believe it was in the GDC video at some point during one of his dialogues.

Aha! Nice catch. Here's what he said: "Overtly browsing other players worlds. Asynchronous multiplayer online game. Because the time scale changes as you zoom in and out in scale, it's not possible to play synchronously with other players. Instead, content created by other players at each scale migrates from game to game asynchronously." RoadKillian 05:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some have termed it (and I believe Will agreeed with this) as massivly single-player online game. or simply a massivly single player game. Either way it sounds good and applies. Chris M. 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I still really hope that they do add internet netplay support later it would be much more awsome if it was an MMORPG 83.226.148.184 17:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good sweet lord no. The 'Asynchronous multiplayer online game' sounds good - but this doesn't look like the kind of game that would be fun playing with other poepl in real-time. Playing with thier creations is plenty. Robovski 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A massive asynchronous multiplayer game like this is a good idea because it brings the best of two different types of worlds. It has the expansiveness of content through downloads of an MMORPG of sorts without having to deal with other people trying to ruin your experience by being needlessly rude and flaming you, destroying your civilization, or killing all your creatures while you're away from your PC (and whatever other system you'd be playing the game on). You get to see everything that another player has got to offer with none of the risk dealing with some egotistical jerk. My question is to how big will the downloading of shared content be and at what points to be specific that you'll acquire it? I don't think any of us can be completely sure of this until more details come out.

xbox360 and spore

Should someone Add something about spore's possible coming to the xbox360? Although it hasn't offically been confirmed by maxis, Both Gamingsteve(who so far has been %100 right from whatever connections he's getting info from. Just thought i would point that out.) and later on A microsoft Rep have Talked about it coming to the xbox360. Something is wrong with the actual Interview Article joystiq did with Steve Baumer where he sort of let it slip about spore coming to the 360, and half of it (including the part where he said it) got chopped off since being archived, but Gamespot has something on it: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-9399-2040-4-4-x+Interview+Microsoft+Spore&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3 Scroll down to the last one. Also here's the link to gaming steve's: http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=209.0 Of course he found this out back in April. Note how he called it the xbox 2, instead of the 360(sorry, forgot to sign).--72.228.6.188

Is this intended to be purely a console game? I had hoped for PC, but perhaps that's too much to ask. --Kickstart70 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The impression I've gotten from everything I've seen do far is that this will be a PC game. It may be on different platforms, but for the things they want to do, the PC would be the easiest platform to work it into.

Its from last year but basically in an interview with Steve Ballmer he accidently let slip a hint that Spore was coming to the 360. "When quizzed on how the 360 would let developers innovate and break new ground, Ballmer replied: "We've got to be there telling the story and showing those things which are more interesting. Whether it's a Spore or Kameo, which is a different kind of a game for the console world." [1] I'd say that's worth noting in the infobox, but I don't know the format for how you guys do things in those, so I'll leave it to someone else. Chris M. 17:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SimEverything

From what we've seen of SimEverything, it looks like a completely different game. It should still be mentioned here, but it should be changed to reflect that (and maybe it should be put under its own heading). -69.222.173.236

There is no "SimEverything" game, so how can it be completly different? Chris M. 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isn't anymore, but there is an excerpt from a book that refers to SimEverything. 24.220.195.154

That was a very early "codename" for spore, although I'm pretty sure it wasn't made up by will himself but coined by someone else. It could be in a triva section or something saying "Spore was originally referred to as SimEverything"

It sounds like the same game anyway, but with an extra first level where you had to populate the universe with atoms and molecules through nuclear fusion, supernovae etc. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design vs Evolution remark

"oh no" is all I can say in regards to this. Is there a reference to cite what Will Wright calls this game type so that this issue can immediately be nipped in the bud before something gets out of hand? (because it will) --63.117.239.165 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Will uses the term "evolve" and "evolution" many times in his GDC presentation (see link at the top of the list -300+mb download), there is no reference whatsoever to the term "intelligent design" and there is no reference whatsoever to anything that would require a link to intelligent design. It has NO place in this article. His only contribution was to change evolution to intelligent design and if a person has any knowledge of the game itself, it would be clear that was not a term EVER used to describe it by it's creators nor what the game means. Issue nipped. Chris M. 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure. No need to get capslockish. With a topic such as evolution vs creationism. We must make sure that Will Wright specifically uses the term evolution or there will be arguments of whether this game is a game with an evolution theme or an intelligent design them. I think it has both IMO.

The "EVER" was caps for emphasis, should have used ever, but it had the same point. He did use the world evolution and evolve. But yes, there is a theme of intelligent design because the player is intelligent, and designing a world. But it doesn't mean the ID as referenced in the link. Evolution is far more appropriate for that particular link. There is no need for an intelligent design link in this article. Chris M. 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - obviously there is an element of intelligent design as you, the player, will select changes in your creatures so as to adapt to the environment but see no reason why a link to the intelligent design article need be included in the Spore article. Frankly, I don't think we need to go with either, and don't want to get involved. This is a game, and it looks like a fantastic game, the last thing I want to do is get caught up in the evolution/intelligent design/creationism debate. Robovski 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's intelligent design of evolution. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How could you possibly avoid making a game that didn't have some kind of resemblance to Intelligent Design? The only way to do that would be if you had no control over the evolution, and with a game like Spore, that would be like running the disk then sitting back to watch the game play itself. -- Specusci

Terraforming

In the video, Will says something about "Kid Pics" in the terraforming part. What is he referring to?--Sonjaaa 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

good question..I looked it up earlier..it is art software for kids for drawing with "chalk" "pastels" "watercolor" etc. It has images and whatever. for kids kindegarden though 8. kid pix

I added a blurb to the triva section on it. I could not find the producers of the game in a quick search. The best I came up with was this

http://rivapprod2.riverdeep.net/portal/page?_pageid=353,143072,353_143073&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

which may not be a permanent link to the description of the product.

----

He was probably talking about the classic DOS Kid Pix (only half-decent link I could find), which I thought was awesome when I was that young. You could click on brushes and have them do really odd things and animations. The modern once seems pretty insignificant. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The terraforming thing with the kid pix is about how you can edit the terrain, pretty much. --68.161.201.10 19:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More info coming out?

When is the next conference or presentation or event when we can expect more details on Spore to come out?--Sonjaaa 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

E3, on 10 May - 12 May. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Wright will be giving two talks that use Spore as demonstration software at the 2006 Game Developers Conference, which is late this month. There are links to the talks' teasers in the Development history section of the article. I expect there will be more videos to chew on after March 23. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Self Obsession

In the first 15 or so minutes, it seems like Wright is extremely obessesed with the procedural generation. He mentions it at least 5 times. Did anyone else happen to notice it? PirateMonkey 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the talk itself on procedural generation? --Yamla 16:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Note that it was a speech about the benefits of procedural generation for a crowd of game developers at the Game Developers Conference. The game itself was actually really incidental to his speech. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was really about procedural generation, he either would have elaborated for the rest of his alloted time, or quit after he was done. He wouldn't have gone on and on about the game if it were about the procedural generation. 209.33.36.146 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the full 1-hour video? There's a 35 min version that is missing all the rest of parts that are just him talking, and those parts have a lot about procedural generation and other high-level game design concepts. The Spore demo really was to illustrate his talking points, and to prove that these seemingly far-fetched ideas were actually so practical that he had a working game that uses them. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

E.V.O. game

An IP added E.V.O.: Search for Eden to the comparison of the Evolution stage of Spore with Diablo. Retodon8 (rightly) reverted that, saying: "RV edit by 212.37.16.194. I never heard of EVO-Something. 1 good example is better than 2 including a random game."

I really don't think that the link belonged there because, currently, the comparisons are all ones that Will Wright made himself. However, ever since I've heard of Spore, I've also heard people comparing it to E.V.O., a platformer for the Super Nintendo that shares much of Spore's theme. Should it be mentioned anywhere? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While E.V.O. might not be as well known as Diablo, in my opinion Spore's gameplay seems much more similar to E.V.O.'s. I read this article for the first time today and seeing it compared to Diablo just made me go "huh?" --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Those comparisons are for each stage, rather than the whole game. They're actually there because they are influences, or styles of gameplay that Will Wright directly compared them to in his speech. (The speech link is in the article. Go watch it if you have time—you'll enjoy it I'm sure!) I've clarified the lead of the list a bit to highlight that. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the video awhile ago. I guess I didn't realize he mentioned Diablo. So yeah, if those are games he specifically mentioned then I agree that only those games belong there. Perhaps if there's ever a need for a "See also" section in this article a link to E.V.O. could be added there. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize he said Diablo either - and I did sit through the hour video (which was well worth the time spent). If that is the comparison he made, I think we should stick with those comparisons until we have other original source material to draw on (i.e. interviews). Robovski 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to what Will said. I, however, want to say that i've played EVO and it is more than just some "random game." Lots of people have played it before and it is definitely Spores' predecessor (genre speaking). I've never played Diablo, isn't that a shooter game? I don't understand why Will would make that comparison... if I remember correctly, I think he made the comparsion because you have to keep building your skills in Diablo (like armor, etc...). But if that's true, you also had to build evolution points in EVO to evolve your body parts & eventionally evolve to a higher being... therefore, EVO would have still made a great comparison. --Jelligraze 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the gameplay comparisons don't stretch further beyond the fact that the player is "evolving" in each. And I use the term as loosely as possible when referring to EVO. I've played it recently, and even though I'm half-asleep right now it seems to me that EVO was no different from any other standard RPG in terms of leveling up. The only things was that the attributes that you increased were named after parts of the body. Whoopdeedooo. Have you read the stuff on Spore or watched the video at all? What you're looking at is completely superficial. EVO has no place in this article at all. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The gameplay in Spore is, in it's most essential form, a vast expansion on the ideas started in E.V.O- That section of the game is, essentially, to E.V.O what, say, Final Fantasy 8 is to an Amiga-based RPG. Since this is such a rare genre, consisting of basically these two, and maybe a few others, none as well known as E.V.O., which at least deserves it a " See also" Ajoxer --216.254.64.211

"The only things was that the attributes that you increased were named after parts of the body. Whoopdeedooo. Have you read the stuff on Spore or watched the video at all? What you're looking at is completely superficial."

I don't completely understand what you're saying here, but if you are saying the changes are only "superficial" than you are simply wrong. The upgrades made to your creature in both EVO and Spore increase your creations abilities by allowing stronger attacks, stronger defense, quicker speed, etc... Did you not see the part of the video where he added a spike to the front of the creature during the first stage to allow it to attack better? That same concept is in EVO, nothing "superficial" about it. Please don't ask me whether or not I watched the video when I, obviously, paid more attention to it than you did. --Jelligraze 04:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Having looked into EVO some more, I can see how comparisons are being made. I'm not sure just how relevant that is to the article on Spore though - but would probably make for a good basis of discussion on a web board forum. I supoose I could support a 'see also'. Robovski 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Requirements

I know this information isn't official, but what range would the system requirements be in? It looks rather easy graphics-wise, which seems to be his style (not requiring huge upgrades). I'm curious because I'm buying the 7800GS, and I want to make sure this will be able to handle Spore, which is definitely the Best. Game. Ever. Atropos 20:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally anything unofficial, meaning speculation, shouldn't be in Wikipedia. As it's personal inquery in this case, you might have better luck at a gaming-specific site or Spore fansite, as most Wikipedians won't discuss things like that in here. (That's not what talk pages are for, so don't blame them... or me, not that I have a clue about the requirements anyway.) Retodon8 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Theres a bit of info here on the min specs for spore. but i think all sites offering the min specs will only be able to give a guess at this point.

Even through the fairly grainy GDC video, the 35min47sec one, the graphical quality of the game as well as the amount of activity and animations that occur on screen are rather high. You can openly see the framerates drop at certain points during his in-game presentation more specifically being whenever he was going through the city, civilization, spacefaring, and galactic stages. He was obviously not running it on an extremely fast PC or laptop/notebook. So for someone with a terrible computer it's probably going to run rather poorly. For me it's not too much of a major problem but for other people who can't exactly afford better PC hardware it probably will. So by the time it comes out it will probably be fairly system dependent. I wouldn't suggested going out to buy new hardware just yet. We should just wait and see for the official specs since they haven't been released. --Vgamer101 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Doing some searching apparently It's a Clevo brand laptop he was using at his 05 GDC presentation if that helps some getting a rough idea of requirements, but I haven't been able to find the exact model--Sgore 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spore to hit DS and PSP and most likely expect a 2007 launch

[2]

I don't know how you guys want to set up the infobox, but more and more new evidence is pointing to a 2007 launch then the fall '06 that will said almost a year ago.

Also, I don't know how you guys want to edit the box to state that it will hit phones, DS and PSP also. But there is the info Chris M. 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the box should be changed for an entirely 2007 deadline; as there is no official release date yet, it should still show the earliest projected date (which is Q3 of 2006, not April of 2007). Maybe that will change after E3, but we don't know yet. --Specusci

EDIT: I think the 2007 deadline is more for the DS and PSP console versions?

SporeWiki.com

SporeWiki.com was removed from the list of links on the 3rd by a contributor with only that as an edit. It's entirely possible it was a way of trying to stop sporewiki from getting the hits that other sites wanted from wikipedia but didn't deserve due to them not being useful for an outside link. SporeWiki is most definitly worthy of an outside link because it has information that can only be found there, and information that can be found other places, but it is far better organized and easy to understand on sporewiki. Will Wright has sent an email to me telling me that he actually looks over the stuff on sporewiki occasionally (as he does with gaming steve), but that's not the point. SporeWiki was for a while the only place that had the full GDC '05 video and for actually IS the host of the full downloadable file that is listed here. It clearly deserves the attention of getting a named link, and I don't think it was ever justified to have it removed. What does everyone else think? Chris M. 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting: The sporewiki doesn't seem to be running any ads. Tlogmer 09:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, thanks for pointing that out. Chris M. 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose removing SporeWiki's link as it's a highly relevant community. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the site myself, but I do agree that a link to a more specific wiki can be a useful supliment to an article; however, one thing I've been wondering is what do you do when there's the case of multiple wikis on the same subject? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the same thing that is done when there are mutliple fansites on the same subject: link to every one that is good, up to a reasonable number. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I had been to SporeWiki before, and I hadn't realized the link was removed from the article. I support SporeWiki's inclusion in the links section as there was useful and signifigant content. Robovski 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Spore Monsters

I've reverted about 8-10 edits from IP addresses trying to include this site. Just now I've added a comment for them to discuss the reversion/addition/reversion cycle here on the talk page. I'm getting pretty sick of this and hope we can either somehow more quickly revert them to make it pointless for them to continue, or have them beef up their content to the point that inclusion is actually worth something (I doubt it). It's a low-content fan site and is not notable enough for inclusion here at this time. Disagreement? If not, please give me a hand keeping the spammers out. --Kickstart70·Talk 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I am a staff member there (http://www.spore-monsters.com/) (I don't write the content, i just admin the site); and to be honest, I think that you can't really call it a low-content site. There aren't 1000's of pages or anything, but not much is known about this game. But I still guess I half agree with you. Soon we will probably be the ultimate Spore resource site. *soon* ;)

ps, oops, not sure how to work this thing. When I edited it, it didn't display correctly. *confused* —This unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 (talk • contribs) .

this is me again. i believe that spore monsters has enough content/good forum community to be put on it. thoughts? (www.spore-monsters.com) Moonrat506 09:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ?

Added a link; no one has complained, and the message above was left a few days ago. thanks. Moonrat506 11:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase there is a lack of concencous doesn't mean it should be added. The other site that arugued for being added to the links actually had people support it. No support, no link. Come back when you have more content than you do now and try again. KungPaoChicken 11:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Ok. No offence, but did you actually look at the site again... There have been no (logged) referals from any wikipedia link in the last hour...*confused* —This unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 (talk • contribs) .

I didn't find any significant information that cannot be found on the wikipedia article. I was under the impression that the general rule of thumb for wikipedia is to avoid linking outside to info that can be found inside. Also, please sign your posts with a ~~~~ KungPaoChicken 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, never click a link on Wikipedia that I am investigating for legitimacy. I always copy the link and paste it into my browser so that no referral ever shows up. That could be why you got no referrals in your logs. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There was support to have it stay off (as can be seen from numerous removals of the link). The people who have removed that link are people who have been here (and not an IP with just 1 edit like the one who removed sporewiki). So it had support to be removed. You simply stuck in a message saying it has enough content to be put in, provided no evidence of this, and received no support, then put it in. Wait til you get support for doing something that is contrary to numerous edits by numerous people who understand wikipedia policy. There simply isn't anything on that site that makes it worthwhile to be here when gamingsteve and sporewiki are. Chris M. 13:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

might as well delete this this yeh? —This unsigned comment was added by Moonrat506 (talk • contribs) .

Talk page activity is kept and eventually archived, so no, it shouldn't be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you have the potential to have a site that is notable enough for inclusion here. But it's going to require effort and time on your part and the part of others. If you really want the best Spore-related fan site on the internet, the time to start is now, and when the time comes that you reach that level, I'm certain that others will notice and put the site here and elsewhere. Sites without care, thought and wonderful content are a dime a dozen on the internet. It takes considerable effort and a little luck to stand out from the crowd. Just for an example, page through the 'featured' articles on the front page. The stuff that made them notable enough that they were featured is the same things that help sites on the internet be noticable. --Kickstart70·Talk 23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - your site has potential, but right now it is nothing special. I don't want to offend you, but as I said in a different comment above, Wiki isn't a web ring, nor a link depository. I think your site is more attractive than some of the others I've seen for Spore, but currently there isn't that much going on on your forum, and no content I haven't seen elsewhere. Changing the content issue will be difficult, but if you had a thriving forum or something else of noteworthy, signifigant or unique to offer I would offer my support, like I did for SporeWiki. Robovski 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Game Stages

1. Tidepool stage, similar to Pac-Man
2. Evolution stage, Diablo
3. Tribal stage, Populous
4. City stage, SimCity
5. Civilization stage, Risk and Civilization
6. Space Exploration stage, (a.k.a. UFO stage or Invasion), with some elements from Space Invaders
7. Galaxy stage, which is a giant sandbox game

I propose different names, and I'd like to have comments on these

1. Tidepool stage, similar to Pac-Man
2. Creature stage, Diablo
3. Tribal stage, Populous
4. City stage, SimCity
5. Civilization stage, Risk and Civilization
6. Spacefaring stage, (a.k.a. UFO stage or Invasion), with some elements from Space Invaders
7. Galactic stage, which is a giant sandbox game

The three bolded items:

Creature stage is better because it involves your "creature" as the Tidepool stage ALSO has evolution in it, so calling it evolution isn't specific enough I'd say.

Spacefaring Stage would be better because it isn't as much "exploring" as it is traveling. You get off the UFO and then you have the solar system, saying "Exploration" involves more exploring then the game would have, plus, sporewiki uses spacefaring for the same reason.

Galactic Stage would be better then galaxy stage, because it explains the kind of travel you have, which is galactic. Since Will doesn't name these stages himself, I think that would apply more.

I'd also like Microbial Stage over Tidepool Stage because I don't believe Will ever used the term "Tidepool" in his GDC speech (even if that's what it is), I think it would go better with the new "creature stage" if it were microbial, and I think "tidepool" goes better with "Galaxy stage" which for the reasons I stated above, I think should change.

Plus, the majority of the community who cares about it, is using the Microbial/Creature/Tribal/City/Civilization/Spacefaring/Galactic naming scheme. Not a big decision maker, but interesting to note.

Comments? Chris M. 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

i Agree; it is what most other sites use, including sporewiki.com --194.82.168.3 11:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I believe I can support these changes. Robovski 00:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I Think Will did say "Tidepool", but my memory is fallible and I think "Microbial" is a more descriptive title anyway. The rest are good, though I'll suggest Survival as a possible alternative to Creature for people to consider. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also a good idea, but then again, what stage isn't Survival? :) Chris M. 13:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

True! Well, some grist for the mill is just less useful than others. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I have made the changes as I suggested and others have agreed on. Chris M. 22:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't need Cleanup-Spam w/ Ext Links.

I don't see the reasoning at all. It does not need cleanup, it does not need to be listed in the Spam Cleanup project. It gets occasional vandalism and, mostly, links not appro for Ext-L. A guideline issue and a editing issue. Removing it. --Avillia 05:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Release Date

Since no definite release date has been set, or release year for that matter, the article should reflect that, so I changed the publishing date from 2007 to "Q3 2006 to Q$ 2007 although no definite date has been announced." Also, it makes the main article match the quick stats bar on the right. -- Lu Yan 8:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It would definitely help if you provided a cite for that. Otherwise it just sounds like guesswork, which is not encyclopedial. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the only info we have to suggest Fall '06 was from the Gaming Steve Interview with Will Wright 2005, which was just following E3. The evidence for an '07 release is the Wired 14.04 Spore article. which says "EA will release Spore next year." The evidence for an early '07 release date is found in the Advanced Prototyping presentation given at GDC '06 by a spore developer. I have it on my PC but can't upload it at the moment. But it shows a graph of the prototyping schedule that goes until March '07. So while it isn't DEFINITE that it will come out before March '07, there is no evidence to suggest it will be later then that. Chris M. 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

According to episode 47 (The newest at this time) of gamingsteve, Q3 2006 is still the projected release date, but the unoffical word is that it'll come out when it comes out--Sgore 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the cite on the April 2007 or later date (though sad to hear). Good work, I think that can stand until we have new news. Robovski 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2007 projection looks like a date for the DS and PSP releases, but I'm not sure. --Specusci

Sure, E3 isn't over yet, but the EA press release (and I believe there is a webcast too) shows that it will not be released in this fiscal year, which means after March 2007 - April 2007 would be the earliest it could be released. Perhaps console/handheld releases would be simultaneous rather than later, but that's pure speculation.Robovski 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that kind of thing have a source on the article itself? Or at least a link presented to it cite it here? Chris M. 15:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's fair. I'm tracking down original source links now, but here's a report of the EA print press release as reported on Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9162 I'll add material after I have it down to base (EA preferably) links. Robovski 23:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, from the EA investor relations site:http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=88189&eventID=1306810 provides links for the May 3, 2006 earnings conference. Apparently it is hours long and mentions Spore the once as not comming out until the new fiscal year - which means at the earliest we will see Spore in April 2007. These links may be usefull for an inline cite, but's it's a lot of work to follow up on, so maybe the Gamasutra link should be provided as it is more easily accessable. Robovski 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Got this one tonight, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006-05-08-spore-played_x.htm?csp=34 says release will be "next year".Robovski 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Space Invaders?

I think someone might have taken WIll Wright a little too seriously. He meant the thing about Space Invaders as a joke. As far as I can tell, the only similarity is that you can blow up planets. It's not really similar to Space Invaders. I suggest we remove that comment about Space Invaders from the article. Hydragon 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree completely. Space Invaders is a completely different sort of game that has nothing to do with this. A better example would be Destroy All Humans. At least in that, you can zap people with your spaceship, have 3d movement, and can abduct people.  :) Joey 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, good idea, it is quite a bit like Destroy all Humans. Chris M. 15:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• though maybe someone should put a note wright didn't actually say that, the way it's set up now it looks like he did.-72.230.6.138 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Educational use

Is it possible to use this game to help teachers teach evolution or something. And i am neutral in the evolution-creation thing, so don't flame me.

I doubt it, it's not really like evolution exactly, you don't have to die to have progression, and you don't relaly have to have a NEED for a mutation to happen. It's more of a "hey check this out to" kind of thing, then the a teaching tool I'd say. Chris M. 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it can't, and shouldn't be (ab-)used that way. As it is, the game is more closely modelled after the Lamarckian idea of heredity in evolution than the Darwinian one. That's understandable, as Lamarck's approach does lend itself to a narrative approach better than Darwin's -- which is also why people still get them mixed up. :) ‹кндмцяд› ж «тдгк» 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Like any game you turn to an educational use, it is dependent upon how you incorporate the game and what you are trying to teach. Civilization has often been touted for having some educational value, but I think that is overestimated, at least in a historical sense. It is very good at resource management and multi-tasking, and any game can help with computer familiarity and literacy (like comic books promote reading). It's hard to say what eductional use Spore would be until we actually have a copy of something playable, like a demo. I don't expect it will be good for teaching evolution in any sense as the creatures don't change through mutation or through natural selection from external stimuli but through the choices made to the plan or whims of the player. Kind of a more creationist stance, really, with the player as god.Robovski 01:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I added the source for the 2007 idea. It's not shown on the website point about it because there was a full size image which had it's text removed when it was momantarily up on the wired website. That page says what is in the text. I thought it'd be best to just cite the article on wired's website, even if an online version of it couldn't be found, then to cite sporewiki. Either way it works, and is proven. Chris M. 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Wired issue, but I did find Will Wrights guest editorial which was cached by Google (it was removed from the Wired main online article listing, but you can read it here: http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:QrtjeK6bZNQJ:www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/wright.html+The+New+World+of+Games+wired+will+wright&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1). In it he speaks generally of games that engage the player's imagination, but there is no specific reference to Spore. Robovski 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It was in a black circle in the top right side of that image, I can't find it on the internet anywhere, but I have the magazine and so have cited it. Chris M. 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Galactic Stage v. Stellar Zoo

Galactic Stage seems more appropriate because it's really more then just the stellar zoo, and galactic is the term more widely used and is probably more noticable to those who aren't into Spore and haven't heard Will say that phrase (has anyone else heard that phrase outside of this game?). Although if Stellar Zoo is not used anywhere in the article page then I think it needs to fit in somewhere.

Maybe just change the line to something like:

Galactic stage, which Wright likened to a "stellar zoo" and which is a giant sandbox game

...red being my proposed addition. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what he was saying was that the environment was a stellar zoo (full of different "species" of stars), not that the gameplay itself was a zoo. Which wouldn't have made much sense anyway. --Krsont 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

External Site Links

OK, this is an ongoing issue and it isn't going to just go away. I've noticed that right now we don't have any community Spore sites listed, and while I didn't support the inclusion of the Spore Monsters site (discussion above) I do think we should have at least one major 'community' site listed. To be clear, I have no such site and I am not affiliated nor currently frequent such a site. I do think we should have at least one, but I don't want this to be a web ring either, so I thought I'd discuss this here with you kind Wiki folk. The recent Planet Spore entry http://www.planetspore.co.uk/ certainly has more material than other sites I've seen, but Gaming Steve's (currently linked to via 13 month old news article on Spore on the current list) discussion forum http://gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?board=12.0 is much more active. Anyone else have any suggestions? Oppose or support? Please sign all comments below. Robovski 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We do have a community site linked, which is SporeWiki. Another might not hurt, but planetspore makes my eyes bleed. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Made me shudder at first sight. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gaming Steve is THE Spore forum on the internet at the moment (which is a more closely knit community the a wiki), so it should be linked more then that. Steve is responsible for a lot of the info here in some respects and his forums spurred on a majority of these other fansites (I've watched them being spawned myself :)). Chris M. 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with that - so Gaming Steve it will be unless anyone else has some further input? Robovski 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gaming Steve is a major factor in bringing out Spore news and awareness. He should get more credit for this and his Spore message board needs recognition. We've just gotta put it in Ryuukuro 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I put gamingsteve on the list with a little phrase, feel free to edit it to make it better please, thanks. Chris M. 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats the policy with 'mirror' links of videos? And how many mirrors does one need for a single video? -KPC

It's good having the video content linked for reference, but I don't think we need more than 1 reliable link to each different video. I'd prefer such sources be independent and generally freely available. Robovski 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiStylee 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC):::http://www.planetspore.com, also known as http://www.planetspore.co.uk, continually attempts to put multiple links to their site in the External Links section. This vandalism (unnecessary spam) will not be tolerated -- especially since this site is nowhere near the quality of other sites' coverage of Spore (http://www.gamingsteve.com and http://www.xspore.com, for example) WikiStylee 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Added Official Spore Trailer & G4 links - very cool media player at xspore.com

Planet Spore was created on 28th March 2005, and was the first ever Spore site in existence. Since then, it has reached over 250 members, 282 screenshots and downloads for all Spore videos released so far. At this current point in time, it does not contain much information on the Spore game itself, due to the site having undergone a re-design recently. However, in the past, and for almost one year, it was the number one source for Spore information. Planet Spore updates it's news the day it is revealed on other sites, in a timely fashion (it is impossible to expect one teenager to be able to update news every single second). It posts articles, screenshots videos and new information released on Spore. I added Planet Spore to Wikipedia's External Links section very soon after the site launched. Repeatedly, my link was removed and the reason for removal was "Wikipedia is not a lik depository". I accepted that, and did not attempt to add my link again for some time. However, recently, I noticed an increase in the number of community sites in the External Links section, with some links actually linking to the same site twice (e.g. GamingSteve.com, xSpore.com and SporeWiki.com). I do not believe that these sites are horrible. On the contrary, I visit them, and agree that they offer good quality news and information on Spore. However, I did not believe it fair that links (and multiple links, at that) to other community sites should be allowed, if Planet Spore was not. Therefore, I did remove some links to other sites a few times, and other times added Planet Spore's link back. After speaking to an Administrator at SporeWiki.com, I have since then not touched the external links section to REPLACE a link, only to add a link to either Planet Spore's home page, direct links to videos, or a link to the video page itself. I believe that Planet Spore deserves to be placed in the External Links section, even if it simple a link to its video collection (which was what I attempted to link to), forums, news page or even screenshots page. As the first Spore site, and a popular source for information and a welcoming, friendly community, it should be treated with the same fairness and respect as other community Spore sites.I will not add Planet Spore's link back until I recieve permission to do so. However, until I do recieve permission, I will continue to pursue this case, and provide reasons and arguments for why the site should be included. I am happy to talk with anyone who believes Planet Spore should not be placed in the External Links section. As a note, I would also like to point out that I have never posted any link to Planet Spore with the description of "Great Site! Cool COmmunity! WICKED!" or anything like that. If that kind of link did appear, it was not me. SashP 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

280 registered members is a minor forum, and still speaks nothing of the number of active users or posts. Also, I mean no offense but the site's layout is horrible. It doesn't scale properly to different resolutions, and the colours and strange fonts are not needed in the slightest. Simplicity wins. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means Consumed but that's a crappy argument. I find it horrid to see as comments in capital letters NOT to include that site till we find some sort of solution. What do you propose? Nothing I guess. It's either we include it or not. So why not include BOTH and let this matter rest? Wikipedia is not a place to advertise indeed but come to your senses, please. Planet Spore may not be the most active site, but you need to find better reasons in order to exclude it for the external links. Phoebus^{γράψε μου κάτι} 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)