The Man Who Made Spore Suckier

[Logan Frederick]

The Man Who Made Spore Suckier

Debates over who caused the hyped evolution simulation Spore to turn into an intelligent design game might be over as fans have identified an EA employee who pushed for less science in Spore.

When scorned, leave it to the dedicated fans to unravel the mysteries of why their favorite games aren't quite perfect.

Spore forum goer Finnical compiled a heavily-evidenced argument [http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/8555.page;jsessionid=DE78B786ADC36D0C324BFC4DDFE4C725.240059#93713] against Chris Hecker, "Technology Fellow" at EA studio Maxis, for toning down the evolutionary aspects of Will Wright's project in favor of more casual-player accommodating gameplay.

An article [http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/09/the_creation_simulation.php] from scientific magazine Seed dissecting the intelligent-design aspects of Spore highlighted Hecker's early concerns in development over the realism of Wright's vision.

"Chris Hecker was having strong misgivings about how appealing all this hard science would be to the wider world," states Seed. "'I was the founding member of the 'cute' team," he says with pride. 'Ocean [Quigley, Spore's art director] and Will were really the founding members of the 'science' team. Ocean would make the cell game look exactly like a petri dish with all these to-scale animals and Will would say, 'That's the greatest thing I've ever seen!' and some of us were thinking, 'I'm not sure about that.'"

Hecker's camp began messing with the science team's concepts. "Quigley's microscopically accurate concept drawings were vandalized with stuck-on googly eyes; there were suggestions that it might be cool if the creatures wore sneakers," revealed Seed.

Quigley understood both sides, explaining that a true evolutionary project "is so absurdly vast, so radically outside of any scale that people can really empathize with, we knew we had to turn it into a toy."

A second major source, ex-Intern at Maxis Michael "mflux" Chang, revealed the detailed modeling and physics the programming team had developed to allow realistic animal adaptations.

"In the extremely early versions that I toyed around with, I was able to make creatures that shifted under their own weight," explained mflux. "Creatures that exploited the length of their arms or legs for greater reach. Creatures that behave and move true to how they were built. A short bunny-creature would definitely be out-run by the long-legged dragon-giraffe. That was very neat, and it implied several exciting possibilities in gameplay...The strategy that earlier prototypes implied went beyond placement of parts. The length of limbs or spine felt like it mattered. If you had a forward-heavy animal with legs placed in the back, it would run poorly as it tries (and fails) to counteract its own weight."

Spore's review scores [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/218-Spore] were shockingly not perfect from the many of its reviewers due partially to the oversimplification of the science aspects promised from earlier builds. Few consider the game bad, and with an average Metacritic score of 84 percent, most would say it's pretty good for a game. The disappointment stems from hope that it'd be more than a game; it was hailed as the melding of educational science and entertainment.

Future expansions [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86363] might deliver the expanded gameplay features originally included in early demos. Until then, Spore's reputation as a mere God game will have to satisfy those yearning for more.

UPDATE: Spore Executive Producer Lucy Bradshaw responded [http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/165/8555.page#128787] in the original thread supporting Hecker's contributions to the project and give background on how the game's direction was determined:

[blockquote]Will very much remained the visionary and design leader throughout the development of Spore. He worked collaboratively with the team when opinions differed but decisions were definitely in his domain....

The cute vs. science debate within the team had more to do with the concept of accessibility, character and aesthetic than it had to do with the underlying gameplay. Some of this was driven by the simple reality of a very unique and rather cutting edge approach to animation. Procedural animation is just one of the incredible contributions that Chris Hecker made to this game. It was a huge area of focused work and learning for us as the animation engineering team developed this system....

Chris contributed so much in the way of innovations for Spore and deserves to be recognized for his work. While we have no interest in stifling conversation on the Sporum about Spore from anyone, I request that people show respect for others and refrain from outright defamation and threats.[/blockquote]


Permalink

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

*sigh* Stupid stupid people! Science IS cool, you just have to make it cool, like Mythbusters or I dunno A MAINSTREAM VIDEOGAME!

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Actually I don't really care. If Spore would be even more scientifically correct most of my abonomations of creatures would directly collapse under their own weight.

 

[fix-the-spade]

The 'cute team'?!

There must be about a billion and one dilbert Cartoons in that one phrase alones, maybe they could be like some fascist secret police force. Destroying any evidence of creatures without a 'cuteness quotia' above a certain level while the developers aren't looking...

 

[runtheplacered]

Future expansions might deliver the expanded gameplay features originally included in early demos.

Too late for me. I already sold my copy.. that game was horrible. I seriously doubt an expansion is going to make it any better.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Removing the DRM might have been a good idea as well...

But really...Removing the Science from an Evolution Sim? Why not remove the jobs from the Sims? Or the build up to Hero from Star Wars? Or give Gordon a voice? Or make Master Chief empathise with the Aliens? Or make Duke Nukem respect women?

See that point over there? The one that Will had? That's what you should be aiming for.

Game Players are NOT stupid. Even Pokemon-kids can recall 151 monsters.

 

[Dommyboy]

Bloody 'casual' gamers. I am sure they are not completely brain dead and even if they were, why would they be playing Spore in the first place. Why can't games go the extra step instead of making the game easy for four year olds.
Does Spore actually require you to think about science at all? You could rush through the whole game and not even care one bit about it as there are practically no choices in the game except for having 1 of 3 characteristics and the grind-fest space age.

 

[BrotherRool]

Seriously, badly phrased article. ID is inherent in Spore from the beginning because it basically states :evolution and all that but God exists so he's kind of in charge of it all still.

The googly factor seems far less about science and far more making it more accessible to casual gamers. Which Will said he'd aimed for from the start ("we thought about how to make an RTS accessible to the average Sims player")

And that statement was the problem with Spore more than anythign else.

 

[Deschamps]

This game failed in so many ways, in my opinion. First the DRM thing, then the fact that they game basically started out mediocre and got progressively worse. I thought the cell stage was supposed to be an introduction before the game started to get really complex, but it turns out that after the first stage the developers started to forget what game they were making. By the third stage they had completely forgotten and decided to make an RTS and MMORPG for six year olds.

 

[masterhibb]

I'm not sure the lack of "science"--or more accurately (from the description given), phsyics--is what's hurting Spore. If the creatures were able to (or required to, depending on whether you care about optimizing your creature's effectiveness or cuddliness) take their physical forms into account, the only portion of Spore that would be more compelling would be the creature creator. But that's the part of Spore that everybody already really likes.

If that's all that changed, it still wouldn't be an evolution simulator, since picking up body parts from fallen foes and slapping them on your kids isn't exactly how I've been taught evolution works. And it still wouldn't address the major criticism with Spore's gameplay: that the actual tasks you perform with the creatures you create are simple and repetitive.

 

[henryg]

If the Escapist has any journalistic integrity they will pull this story. Neither Logan Frederick, nor any of the posters in this thread, nor anybody in the original Spore forum thread has any idea of how Spore ended up the way it did.

The idea that the game was somehow "vandalized" is completely absurd. Will Wright, credited as the Chief Designer, was in complete control of the game design. Ocean Quigley, as the Art Director, was in complete control of the game's appearance. Chris Hecker, as one of the original prototypers, designed and implemented the very same animation prototypes which "flux" praises as being more involved and interesting than the final game.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

It was the lack of gameplay, not the lack of science.

SCIENCE!!!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If the Escapist has any journalistic integrity they will pull this story. Neither Logan Frederick, nor any of the posters in this thread, nor anybody in the original Spore forum thread has any idea of how Spore ended up the way it did.

The only thing I'd change is putting a question mark at the end of the opening statement. It's an article on forum-goers.

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Bloody 'casual' gamers. I am sure they are not completely brain dead and even if they were, why would they be playing Spore in the first place. Why can't games go the extra step instead of making the game easy for four year olds.

It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the amount of complexity one will tolerate. Which for casual players who do not dedicate there lives to the game isn't exactly a lot. Your not stupid for say not customizing your own car are you? No only hardcore car enthusiasts custom design there cars, most people aren't willing to put the time and effort into a car like that. Because get this, there are more important in those peoples lives. Gaming is not the be all end all for casual players, and thus they want games that they can enjoy without dedicating huge amounts of time and energy to.
Where as we the hard core have already bough into the shared tropes of gaming and thus most of the complexity is already absorbed we do not have to spend hours before we can have fun, whereas a casual who has not preabsorbed these concepts will have to.

 

[Arkitext]

To White Mage above:

You don't have to dedicate any time and effort into spore if you don't want to, the Sporepedia is what makes it accessible to casual gamers. The changes would make it a deeper, richer game. That is NOT a bad thing, ever.

 

[henryg]

The only thing I'd change is putting a question mark at the end of the opening statement. It's an article on forum-goers.

I strongly disagree. Except for one sentence, there is no mention of the word "forum" anywhere. It treats the forum post as a source, not as the topic of news. And it is heavily editorialized:

"Spore's review scores were shockingly not perfect from the majority of its reviewers due precisely to the oversimplification of the science aspects promised from earlier builds."

Really? According to who? Logan Frederick? This is an editorial fabrication. I don't remember a single reviewer saying "This game would be a perfect score, except for the oversimplification of science."

"The disappointment stems from hope that it'd be more than a game; it was hailed as the melding of educational science and entertainment."

Again, according to who? Did someone interview all the disappointed customers? And exactly who out there was hailing it as a melding of science with entertainment? I certainly don't remember any of that.


Reprinting an un-corroborated attack against a member of a development team is not news. The topic of the article is that not the forum goers, but rather the "fact" that the forum goers have "figured out" who was responsible. Which they have not.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The only thing I'd change is putting a question mark at the end of the opening statement. It's an article on forum-goers.

I strongly disagree. Except for one sentence, there is no mention of the word "forum" anywhere. It treats the forum post as a source, not as the topic of news. And it is heavily editorialized:

"Spore's review scores were shockingly not perfect from the majority of its reviewers due precisely to the oversimplification of the science aspects promised from earlier builds."

Really? According to who? Logan Frederick? This is an editorial fabrication. I don't remember a single reviewer saying "This game would be a perfect score, except for the oversimplification of science."

You don't remember anyone saying "This doesn't look like the same game that we were promised in the video release, that was based on the scientific approach?". I sure do.

"The disappointment stems from hope that it'd be more than a game; it was hailed as the melding of educational science and entertainment."

Again, according to who? Did someone interview all the disappointed customers? And exactly who out there was hailing it as a melding of science with entertainment? I certainly don't remember any of that.

Probably stemming from all the negative reviews it got...I mean you can bring up Amazon's page for a couple of hundred of them.

You did get the idea that the Escapist is a "Games Review" site?

Reprinting an un-corroborated attack against a member of a development team is not news. The topic of the article is that not the forum goers, but rather the "fact" that the forum goers have "figured out" who was responsible. Which they have not.

Funny, because if I remember my news stories, Mr. Russel Brand made an un-corroborated attack on Mr. Andrew Sachs this week. And that was all over the papers.

And can you prove that Finnicle's 'attack' was 'unjustified'? Because reading through it, and seeing it mention some of the quotes made earlier...which is usually what reporting does, especially if there is citation, you could come to the idea that he has a point. Which you don't seem to have.

Did you actually read that article linked? Because you would have spotted the 'melding of educational science and entertainment' as quoted from Seed Magazine.

Remembering can't be that hard?

 

[stompy]

Post

The first half, the bit you're riled up about, that doesn't present the information as a source. It just presents some information that was compiled as evidence by the forum user Finnical. It doesn't say it is fact, nor does it use it as a source (well, it uses the forum post, that's acknowledging the original poster).

Ultimately, I'd push to use root's suggestion of placing a question mark at the end of the title.

Edit: Had a read of the source. Edited the post to reflect the new information. Thanks root.

 

[henryg]

It's all a question of degrees. I know that some people (myself included, to some degree) are unhappy with Spore's lack of scientific accuracy. But the article goes on to say that "the majority" of reviewers detracted points because of the scientific accuracy, which is not true. The idea is right, but the statement of fact is wrong.

Likewise, if you read the Seed article carefully, it talks about rivalry among multiple camps and new members being added to the team before it talks about the supposed "vandalism" of some of Ocean Quigley's art. To go from that to saying that "Hecker's camp began messing with the Science team's concepts" is a long stretch. Putting googly eyes on a poster sounds more like a pratical joke than conceptual meddling.

I don't disagree that there is something newsworthy here. But I disagree in part with the slant of the Seed story, and I disagree wholly with the further tilting of the story to "Chris Hecker made the game bad" that is taken here.

Anyway, here is a direct rebuttal of this story (strongly supporting Chris Hecker) by the Executive Producer of Spore, Lucy Bradshaw: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/165/8555.page#128787

 

[TheBluesader]

Actually I don't really care. If Spore would be even more scientifically correct most of my abonomations of creatures would directly collapse under their own weight.

THAT'S why they toned it down, folks. All your Sporn creations wouldn't work, and then what the heck is the point?

I mean, I for one think a hard science take would be really cool. But I can tell you now no one is going to buy that game. And if Will Wright believes in anything, it's making games people want to buy.

I had fun with the Creature Creator, but I don't think I'll ever buy the game. And only because all the cool custom stuff you can do is only on the edges of what is, in essence, very straight-jacketed gameplay. If they had opened it up a little more, it would've been better, hard science or not.