Zero Punctuation: Spore

[JonahNYC]

Okay, I'm calling Ben on this one. As an actual game reviewer since 1997, I'm going to have to say this:

Ben didn't play Spore for more than 2 hours.

It's odd Ben would love The Sims but not Spore, since the former title is a massive micromanagement time sink. In addition, poor Ben thinks the entire game is be carnivore or herbivore (wrong). He also is quite wrong regarding the attack/befriend - it's actually EASIER to befriend other creatures and tribes in the Creature and Tribal phase, and MUCH easier to use commerce to buy other cities in the Civ phase. Honestly, one of the issues in the game is that if you decide to be warlike in the Tribal phase, you'll have problems trying to protect your tribe while attacking the other at the same time, and the other tribe is almost always better prepared, even with the special abilities. It's far easier to stop them in their tracks when they're attacking or stroll into their camp regardless of how much they DESPISE you. Most of his review would be laughed at by people who actually played the game more than once.

Sorry, Ben, but you're falling under Roger Ebert Disease. I remember going to a film screening and Ebert fell asleep after 15 minutes of the film - and based his subsequent review on the first 15 minutes.

And before you dismiss me as some sort of "Spore fanboy", I'm not. My own review will be critical, but, you know, for REAL issues.

Spore is one of the most difficult games to review ever (check Jason Ocampo's IGN review), and Ben basically seems to have based his review on 2-3 hours and reading other reviews. I'm still trying to make a reasoned, accurate review myself.

 

[Wargamer]

Having arsed around on a friend's copy of Spore, I can confirm Yahtzee seems to have utterly fucked up on certain points. I actually did very well as a vegetarian (okay, technically an Omnivore), and short of trying to take on something 50x my size I was never "running away all the time" like he suggests you have to.

And yet, it's not really a fun game. I did have fun playing it this weekend, but I was also pissed for most of this weekend and frankly ANYTHING can be fun when you're pissed. I naturally spent my time giving my creatures a series of very impressive genital growths ranging from tentacle dicks to ten nipples, and it was fun. Drunk, childish fun.

Alas, when I eventually stopped drinking, it was easy to see how empty the game was. It seemed I was never actually penalized for failure - every time I was eaten, I just respawned and tried again until I won. My attempts to befriend certain creatures failed for no discernible reason, and I can only conclude that the game wanted me to do the utterly unthinkable - sacrifice cosmetic design for the sake of "winning" at my goals.

This is not on. Design games are fun because we get to do all manner of things, and create what we want. Yes, I accept that if I want my creature to fly, it needs wings. However, I do NOT accept that I MUST use a SPECIFIC set of wings to attain the SPECIFIC stats I need to befriend the creatures I want to. It would have been a lot better if the "skills" upgrades were not cosmetically restrained.

Overall, I really can't recommend spore. If someone you know buys it, feel free to steal their PC to mess around on it for a day or two, but if you actually spent money on it you'd feel very cheated indeed... unless you plan to become the next Father Jack and never see sobriety again.

 

[Locobato]

Sim City was amazing, I remember playing it for hours. But when the Sims came out it wasn't the same for me. I doubt spore would be worth the time and effort either.

 

[Chimp]

Simple gauge of how much you will like the game:
Do you like creative gameplay? You you need to have objectives to have fun? If you need to "win" a game to enjoy it then you probably won't like Spore. Ditto if you are expecting Spore to be an action game or RTS.

I would have appreciated Spore alot more if it was less shallow than a baby pool though. "Shallow sandbox" is as an effective combo as "tasty shit", "claustrophobic miner", "acrophobic pilot" or... man, I could go on forever. It's alot more fun coming up with awful combos than playing Spore, that's for sure. It has so little sand in it you can't even build a frigging castle, not even a tiny one, you just end up with different piles of sand. Very shallow sand.

Just because the competitors were cinematic abortions doesn't mean the originals weren't good. Remember, back then the expectation was to stick as close to the comic as possible, which is why the fact that he could still pull out a serious film is so impressive. Batman Begins was a great movie, but it didn't hit me on an emotional level like Returns did at the time. Two hit movies that more or less stand the test of time is a major accomplishment, last time I checked.

Come on, unless you are alot older than me, your eye for a good movie was as flawed back then as mine. Today, I can reassuredly acknowledge that Police Academy 1-6 was NOT a good set of movies worth having on VCR, watching at least one of them every second day. Star Wars 4-6 are still awesome though, but that's beside the point. Batman Returns brings great nostalgia to you and that's all there is to it.

 

[TaboriHK]

Nope, I stand by my guns. Returns was a great movie, considering the standards it was confined to. The first one wasn't spectacular, I will concede.

 

[chomesuke]

Generally funny review, as always!
But with one issue, I now play spore on a weekly basis(and by this iI mean every-couple-of-days-a-couple-of-hours), and i am really, really enjoying myself with the way carnivores play.
Just try it, take up a random carnivore in the creature fase, and completely destroy all sentient life on the ''planet'' except for your own little tribesmen.
there is just no better way to fend off aggression, especially when you're just about to kill somebody's cat out of pure frustration.

And by limiting your play time 'till a couple of hours max, the major flaws of the game won't get to you.

At least this worked for me!

All typo's on my account, sorry 'bout that. It's been a busy day, and i'm about to turn in.

 

[boholikeu]

I would have appreciated Spore alot more if it was less shallow than a baby pool though. "Shallow sandbox" is as an effective combo as "tasty shit", "claustrophobic miner", "acrophobic pilot" or... man, I could go on forever. It's alot more fun coming up with awful combos than playing Spore, that's for sure. It has so little sand in it you can't even build a frigging castle, not even a tiny one, you just end up with different piles of sand. Very shallow sand

I disagree here. While the strategic gameplay is certainly limited, I have plenty of things that I still want to try in the game. Maybe you just got fed up with the simplistic minigames, and it sucked the desire to be creative out of you?

As the editor currently sits, yes. I'm obviously saying the editor should not be as it currently sits.

I'm sorry, but I admit I'm pretty confused as to exactly what you want when it comes to the editor. We've been dancing around the subject for a while now, so can you give me a specific example of what you thought it'd be like?

Well, no. You would have simply been forced to find a some kind of plausible evolutionary route towards that end, such as overwhelming numbers or speed.

Well that there crushes out a large part of the game's creativity aspect. It's pretty clear that the game creators were favoring creative gameplay over a more "realistic" model of evolution. Once again, you're simply asking for a different game from what the developers wanted to make.

Nothing. I'm enjoying making things in this 3D design... and, to be fair, animation program. What I've been prevented from doing is playing a "transcendent life simulator" as promised.

I don't really remember Maxis ever promising us a "transcendent life simulator". Certainly that's what some game review magazines led us to believe in some of their previews, but they were obviously filling in the blanks with their imagination. The most I remember Will Wright saying is that "certain aspects of Spore are based on scientific principles". I never took that as meaning we'd have a full on evolutionary simulation. After all, the player is in control of the creature's changes, which goes completely against one of the basic tenets of evolution.

This complaint reminds me of the people that thought we were going to get five fully-fleshed out games with Spore. Not only is the idea ridiculous from a developer's standpoint, Will Wright repeatedly said that each phase would be like a "very simplified version" of other genre's games. Most people seem to have forgotten that part of the previews and demos.

This is probably the thing that bugs me the most about Spore. Sim City and the Sims were classics because they were so complicated and accurate. Water and power grids, roadways, disaster relief? Social lives, time management, work, hygiene? Will Wright handled all that in a graceful easy to use way. But easy to use or not, you weren't going to able to learn it in 15 minutes. This is a dumbed down game for the coffee break crowd. Yeah, it'd be a different game. It'd be the game we were promised.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the micromanagement systems in the Sims was difficult? I'd be pretty worried about someone that didn't master it within 15 minutes. I found Spore's micromanagement systems much more engaging, which is pretty sad because they are pretty simple as well.

I agree with you about sim city though. It always had a pretty complex micromanagement system (the older versions did at least, the newer one seems to be more along the line with Maxis' current creative gameplay focus in that you aren't punished for making the city you want).

"'Creationist' simulator"????????

Creationist as in Creationism or Independent Design. Spore is a much better model of that than it is of evolution.

I even remember Will Wright admitting this in an interview.

 

[bittman]

I haven't even tried carnivore, and I found herbivore impossibly easy. Cast a special, do 3 nice things and you win. I tried omnivore some parts to kill some stuff, took 5x longer.

ANYWAY!

You used to be funny Yahtzee <- Nah, I won't do that since it's what everyone does when he bashes a game they like. I don't like Spore and I agree with the review, but the week after he reviews a terrible game (Too Human) the following review will always seem less comedic.

Wonder if he'll be bothered reviewing the twenty SIMS-style expansions that are incoming?

 

[boholikeu]

I haven't even tried carnivore, and I found herbivore impossibly easy. Cast a special, do 3 nice things and you win. I tried omnivore some parts to kill some stuff, took 5x longer.

Yeah, this really leads me to believe he didn't play the game that thoroughly. Being violent is much harder than being peaceful in the game.

 

[boholikeu]

Sorry, double post.

 

[bittman]

Maybe it was I who didn't play it for long enough, after all my first five words were "I haven't even tried carnivore". The game got so bad in Tribal and Civilisation though that I refused to play it more/again, so I do emphathise with the pommy aussie.

Speaking of which, I found it impossible to change my alleigance during Civilisation out of Religious when I really wanted Economic instead...

Still, don't know what the complaint is. Spore isn't a game you need to play for more than 5-10 hours to experience everything within it (twice). As mentioned by a game reviewer somewhere else: it's a product and not a game. Like the sims, half of the joy is with your imagination and the attitude you take to the game. Of course, like the sims, it'll probably take 5 expansions for it to be worth picking up again.

 

[uzunaruto12]

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

 

[Solo508]

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

 

[boholikeu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vicious Hallway]

I've put off purchasing this game, and I'm sort of glad I have. I have friends who practically mess their pants in sheer delight telling me how addictive it is, and others who have played it and claim they would find watching paint dry to be a more entertaining use of time. All this review has done is confirm what the latter category has been telling me all along.

Simple gauge of how much you will like the game:

Do you like creative gameplay? You you need to have objectives to have fun?

If you need to "win" a game to enjoy it then you probably won't like Spore. Ditto if you are expecting Spore to be an action game or RTS.

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

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

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

 

[boholikeu]

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

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

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

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

 

[anti_strunt]

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

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

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

 

[boholikeu]

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

Ha ha. =)

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

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

 

[anti_strunt]

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

Ha ha. =)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[boholikeu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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