Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spore: 7-day cooling off period?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spore: 7-day cooling off period?

    So it's monday over here, a week since I got Spore (through the unthinking of my local Game outlet here ).

    What is the "7-day cooling off period"? It is the amount of time that other people should ignore new creators. Because just like God, they will spend 6-days creating life, creatures, evolving them and eventually letting them go on their way, and on the 7th day they will also sit back, look at it, and go "woops"!

    I bought the Galactic Edition for $130 AUD. Very pricey! But after reading what was supposed to be included with it I felt it was justified. Hmmpf. The "Making of" DVD is pure marketing garbage that could be played as a TV ad to boost sales. There is as much about making Spore, as I have let on about the making of Civ4 Colonisation! And the poster? Yeah, my kid likes it, BUT HE'S TWO! He likes scribble on the back of a phone bill! But the thing that really irates me, the "so called manual" is passed off as the "exclusive 100-page Prima Strategy Guide". There is no strategy in it, it's the actual manual that SHOULD'VE come with the game! The only two redeeming factors about the Galactic Edition is the really cool box it comes in, and the extra "Art of Spore" booklet.

    I should've bought the standard edition for $90.

    But then we come to the game. There was a MASSIVE build up of hype surrounding Spore. The most that has ever been done for any computer game in history. It's been over 4 years in development. There have been countless articles, promotions, demos, speeches and discussions on the game that has been billed as "create Life, the Universe and Everything"! Sadly, the game falls short of Douglas Adams. 42? No, I propose 38.

    Don't get me wrong, the game is brilliant. Brilliant in concept, brilliant in the ability of user's to create content to share with the World, brilliant in it's simplistic and easy-to-pickup recreation of evolution (Darwin would be horrified though!), and brilliant in its marketing. Where it falls short is in execution. Each phase is fantastic in their own ways. But sadly there are some major execution problems in the very core of the game.

    For instance, let's take the one thing that creates the entire interative atmosphere in the game: the AI. The AI is very simplistic. It has two modes only: happy/charm/trade, or angry/fight/destroy. There's no in between. There is no creature that allies with one, and destroys the next.

    Another issue I have is the difficulty settings. There is no difficulty level that I can see. The only difference is that the harder you get, the more hitpoints the other creatures have, and the majority of creatures become angry/fight/destroy AI's. This pushes you into the carni/combat/aggressive sphere of the game causing the entire opposite sphere to be forgotten. Because a friendly/charming/trading creature will have 100 times more problems surviving at Hard difficulty. I had hoped that the AI would actually get BETTER at higher difficulties.

    There's also the decision to make ability ratings NOT additive after Cell phase. Let me explain. In Cell phase, if you keep adding swimmers, you get faster. But in Creature+ phases, the more speed adding bits you have, you don't get faster. Your ability rating is at the highest level of all the bits you have. So if you have a speed 1 bit, and speed 3 bit, your speed is NOT 4 but 3, which is the highest individual rating of all your bits. I feel that these abilities should've been additive like they are in Cell phase. This would help to promote more complex creatures, and create some actual strategy in your decisions since the complexity gauge only allows a certain number of bits and you want all the bits you can add. It also opens up infinite combinations of creatures. But now, there is simply no incentive to add speed modifying bits as only one counts.

    But don't let me stop you getting the game. Like evolution there is PLENTY of things that are great (read any of the major game site reviews for them). So I'm not going to repeat it here. I just want to point out that it may NOT be what you expect. I'm sure God sat back on the 7th day and said to himself, "is that it?"

    There's a LOT of surprises, and a lot of fun in this game, but does it live up to the hype?

    So my recommendation is to buy the standard game (not the GE) and if you're humming-and-harring about it, then wait till the first price drops in a couple of months. And as for God? Well that's not for me to push one way or the other, and whether or not evolution is evidence of God, or evidence of an interstellar "accident", I hope the evidence presented by an actual player of Spore will help you to make up your mind.

  • #2
    Hmm. Dale, you've been posting like mad and been all excited for the last 4 days. And now it sounds like your initial excitement has worn off and you're basically saying that Spore has an excellent creature / stuff creator but that the actual game is so simplistic that one would quickly get bored with it, exhausting all possibilities rather soon. Is that what you're saying?
    Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
    Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
    I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

    Comment


    • #3
      I just woke up, dressed and ready to go to Best Buy, and now I've read this thread.

      ...



      ...

      But Will Wright will still get to pee on me. Of course, I have enough sense in my head NOT to get the Galactic Edition, but that's another issue...
      The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

      The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

      Comment


      • #4
        Dale could be a really interesting test subject to show what a person thinks about Spore a week or so after buying it. I don't have the game but I've read numerous reviews - all emphasize that the game lacks depth.

        I realize that we aren't Spore's target audience. It's aimed at casual gamers and non-gamers as an introduction to gaming. We over here are Civ players for the most part, so we want and are used to more complexity than the average gamer. In that sense, it wouldn't be surprising if Spore doesn't do too well with Civvers - but what I find worrying is that reviewers emphasize the lack of depth and, in my experience, most reviewers usually fall on the side of preferring less depth.
        Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
        Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
        I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

        Comment


        • #5
          Is someone complaining that the guy who made The Sims didn't make a complex game marketed at everyone in the world? Shock.
          "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
          Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

          Comment


          • #6
            Meh, don't be so negative about Will Wright. The Sims being what it is, Wright has also made actual games. SimCity and SimCity 2K were actual games with decent complexity for their time. Spore, despite the problems there seem to be, is actually a game with goals apparently, and not just a sandbox toy like Sims.
            Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
            Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
            I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

            Comment


            • #7
              Based on the limited time I've played it(actually all the way to the space stage) the gameplay is very simplistic and limited. Down right repetitive actually. The editors are amazing but in the end you are basically changing how your creature/cell/whatever looks not how it plays very much. The cell phase seems to have the most actual gameplay impact based on how you design but at the same time you are so limited in parts that you can't design many optimal cells. At the same time many other creatures seem to have an unlimited number of points in the cell stage making it sort of lame.

              I'm a bit disappointed how shallow much of the gameplay is. It is fun and a cool process of discovery your first time through but many things are so stupid. In the creature phase you might imagine there's an actual real world type nature going on but no, instead creatures are all grouped stupidly into "camps" and just basically sit there. The easiest way to gain "DNA"(aka points) is either to befriend everything(an easy but very time consuming process) or kill everything. Neither is very hard but the "camp" like grouping of creatures makes no sense. Supposedly the "meat" of the game is in the space stage so I'll have to see how that works out...
              Last edited by pg; September 7, 2008, 18:04.
              Eschewing obfuscation and transcending conformity since 1982. Embrace the flux.

              Comment


              • #8
                Those saying how I'm complaining about gameplay, please re-read what I said in my OP:

                brilliant in it's simplistic and easy-to-pickup recreation of evolution (Darwin would be horrified though!)
                I ENJOY the simplistic approach. It's one of the games great features, being able to compress evolution into a 5-hour game for average Joe.

                What I AM trying to raise your awareness to is that some of the fundamental underlying execution could have been a lot better. For instance the AI.

                To me, it really smells of 3 years 9 months of development on the game, then 3 months before release someone turned to Will and said "Holy **** mate, we don't have an AI!" To which he replied, "Put something quick and simple in just to fool them".

                It's like an AI in Command & Conquer who only builds tank factories and heavy tanks. The AI is simple, single-ideaed (either trade or destroy) and no different between difficulty levels.

                Like I said, it's STILL A BRILLIANT GAME, just do NOT expect some of the underlying fundamentals to be as expected.

                I just get the impression they spent too much time on all these fantastic new ideas (in animation, graphics, rendering, creators, designers) and forgot about the important. Like a body with a magnificent skin, but dodgy skeleton.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Kinda like Gov. Sarah Palin: Total MILF on the outside, empty and soulless on the inside.
                  The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

                  The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But you're contradicting yourself. If you're saying that some of the gameplay fundamentals, like the AI, are weak, you can't at the same time be saying the gameplay is strong. The overall design approach can work well but if the gameplay is lacking, it's lacking. Decent AI and customizeable difficulty sound to me like staples of good gameplay, if you say that there's no difference between difficulty levels... well...

                    Also, look at what you mention as the fantastic ideas: animation, graphics, rendering, creators, designers. Those are the non-gameplay elements. I have little doubt that the technology to make all animations so fluid is great, along with the game's procedural content generation. But you're not saying, for example, that it's fun and interesting to conquer other creature tribes. Which seems to match the reviewers, who had little praise for the gameplay in each individual stage.

                    IGN summed up their review by saying that Spore is a brilliant product and a brilliant experience but not a brilliant game. So, which is it? Is the game brilliant, or is the big picture brilliant?

                    To me, it really smells of 3 years 9 months of development on the game, then 3 months before release someone turned to Will and said "Holy **** mate, we don't have an AI!" To which he replied, "Put something quick and simple in just to fool them".


                    See... this is probably the worst thing I could say or hear about any game. I'm of the opinion that the AI is of utmost importance, inadequate AI can destroy good gameplay, while a game with good gameplay is held together by a strong AI. So your perspective scares me somewhat.
                    Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
                    Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
                    I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      No I'm not contradicting myself. The gameplay concepts are great, they really are. The AI isn't.

                      The way the game is played is brilliant. The war the AI plays the game is rubbish.

                      You say my comment scares you. It really is in-line with what the major reviews are saying. However, they seem to be too scared to openly admit it. They hint at the AI weakness, at that the concepts and editors and new concepts (such as the animation routines etc) are brilliant. But I've not seen a review compliment the AI. Some go as far as to talk about the AI in the Space phase but that's it.

                      The major reviews hint at it, but I openly say it. Do NOT expect some of the fundamental skeleton to work as expected (or hyped). This may be fine for the average Joe, but anyone other than a casual gamer is going to notice these things eventually.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He's not exactly contradicting himself...

                        He's simply saying that when the whole should be greater than the sum of it's parts (and there are some very great parts - in this game, the graphics is a gameplay element, because the game modifies your creature's abilities ,even how it walks, based in-part on how the creature looks), but isn't quite there.

                        What you don't realise is that the AI is actually quite advanced in this game, it's just not very good at the higher level stuff. There's low level 'reflex' AI that works out how the creature is going to move and fight, etc based on its parts. And don't say it's all just stats, because no two pairs of arms are exactly the same length or width... Where the AI fails is in the higher level agent code. It's not a problem in the creature stage - if a little boring and repetitive - but, they obviously didn't do much testing in the tribal stage or beyond.

                        And also, I noticed that in the Creature stage, you're limited to the type of mouth that matches how you ended the Cell stage. If you end as a Herbivore, you can only find Herbivore mouths, even if you actually ended the Cell stage with a Carnivore or Omnivore mouth


                        To sum up:
                        • The Cell stage is fun but limited.
                        • The Creature stage is obviously where most of the work went, and is fun, but is fractionally too long, and gets repetitive and slightly boring near the end. More variety of things to do would have been nice.
                        • The Tribal stage is too simplistic and over too quickly. Perhaps if the farming and domestication sections were more thought out, and if there was more to do than, well, collect/eat food and make friends/war.
                        • The Civ stage has some variety, at least. You can capture a city with Military, Buy a city with Economics, or convert a City with Religion.
                        • The Space stage actually plays very much like a stripped down game of Civ, which isn't so odd when you consider where Civ originally came from. SimCity is what inspired Sid to go and make Civ1.


                        In conclusion, it's a great game, but without some more variety (in the gameplay, not just the species), it can get old fairly quickly.

                        Now say the following five times fast:
                        "SimCity made Sid make Civ"
                        Ceeforee v0.1 - The Unofficial Civ 4 Editor -= Something no Civ Modder should ever be without =- Last Updated: 27/03/2009
                        "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there's no conspiracy"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A game is driven by your opponent. Any game. The "opponent" doesn't have to be an actual player, but it usually is. And for PC games, your opponent is usually the AI or another player online. Now, if the AI plays Spore like rubbish, how exactly is the gameplay brilliant? If I understand correctly, all other creatures are guided by the AI, which is predictable and incompetent. So there's no challenge to surviving and no real difficulty to advancing your creature.

                          That seems deadly for replay value. From what I read, anyone who's played a RTS game before will easily be able to beat the Tribal and Civilization stages. I'm sure that it's fun once, but if it's easy due to stupid AI and lacking in depth, what's in it for you after that? You try it differently a second time, but is it any fun at all on the third time? Same actually goes for the Cell stage, which is a very simple arcade. Do it once as a carnivore, once as a herbivore, is there any value or fun to playing it a third time?

                          Mind you, I'm playing the devil's advocate here with this negativity. I have the sense not to call it a bad game if I haven't played it, so I'm just taking this pessimistic stance.
                          Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
                          Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
                          I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Solver, there IS a lot of fun and surprises along the way. You can definitely have fun the third+ times.

                            And the AI is not the WHOLE gameplay. Just a part. And like MMC says, whilst most individual parts are fantastic, some individual parts are not so fantastic. But this does not make the whole a bad game, just not a perfect game.


                            MMC:
                            And don't say it's all just stats, because no two pairs of arms are exactly the same length or width
                            Umm..... it actually is. You add the parts to your creature which max-out the stats you want. I have proven this (and I can do it again if you want ). I created a long upright stick with one arm and one leg. I attached the max-out items (the level 5 items) for each ability. This creature ruled the creature phase. The "look" of the creature has no bearing on it's ability scores. It is purely the items attached to it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              $90!? I got it for $56 and came with a cool Spore T-Shirt.

                              Game is good, I have only done Cell and Creature (I like to play slowly), but I agree with Dale.

                              AI needs to be significantly improved.
                              Creatures should be affected by their design as well as their addons.
                              Addons points should be additive.
                              be free

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X