It's interesting that metacritic comes up with an 85 score from reviewers while the metacritic users rate it 4.7 out of 10. That's a pretty wide gap.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore

This isn't the first time I've seen some highly suspect reviews. It seems to be more and more common in the game industry in the last few years. Never trust a review that is written before the game is released. How did the reviewer get an early copy? Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly? I would think that they would have to know what the result will be to take that chance.

I bought the galactic edition because all the regular copies were sold out. Now I'm feeling buyers remorse. I suppose the DRM rules out selling it used on ebay?

It's interesting that metacritic comes up with an 85 score from reviewers while the metacritic users rate it 4.7 out of 10. That's a pretty wide gap.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore

This isn't the first time I've seen some highly suspect reviews. It seems to be more and more common in the game industry in the last few years. Never trust a review that is written before the game is released. How did the reviewer get an early copy? Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly? I would think that they would have to know what the result will be to take that chance.

I bought the galactic edition because all the regular copies were sold out. Now I'm feeling buyers remorse. I suppose the DRM rules out selling it used on ebay?

Yep, and we got that whole Gamespot fiasco some months ago, can't remember what game it was about, but basically they fired a writer who gave an average review to a new game that was currently advertised on the site. So the website had these huge banners for the game, and the review gave a score of.. I dunno, 77/100 or something. The guy lost his job I think. And then there was gamer outcry against this craziness. But yeah, it's not like Gamespot is the only culprit. Can't quite trust anybody except other users. And even then, I heard things like Amazon.com user-reviews were plagued by fake reviews from paid employees or I dunno what. I'm sure large firms have employees to attack wikipedia, amazon.com, gamefaqs.com and metacritic with their propaganda ;)

Computer Gaming World magazine used to be one you could always trust, but then they got bought by Microsoft and became Games for Windows, with predictable results for the quality of reviews. I've been led astray a few times by them since then. You really can't trust reviewers in this climate.

Early reviews didn't help Space Siege, but anyway from my point of view it isn't the reviewers who are giving biased scores. What I mean is that the difference between what reviewers are focusing on and what people who have said the game isn't good are focusing on. Reviewers are focusing on what the game is, many others are focusing on the game they imagined or hoped for (or worse based on the game using DRM).

SecureROM and DRM are important issues to some people. The "protections" that EA put on the game handicap the game for some people.

EG:
1. I can't have separate logins for me, wife and kid.
2. The 3 install limit would have been hit very quickly by me (I format all our computers 1-2 times a year to keep them running at 100%). Yes, the latest from EA does help to avoid this now.
3. EA deliberately ripped half the game out to sell as XP's at $40 each. For some people that leaves a very dirty taste in the mouth.
4. A lot of people have had extremely bad experiences with SecureROM, technical problems caused by the SecureROM, the fact SecureROM is effectively MalWare, opening an unathorised connection to an external server to transmit unauthorised data about your personal computer usage to them, and that SecureROM remains after the game is uninstalled.

There is very legitimate reasons for people to be angry with the measures put in place by EA.

The DRM is absolutely no issue for me, as one install is all that I will want to waste my precious time on, ever. The gameplay here is non-existent. I can go to armorgames.com and get more compelling gameplay from any one of those free flash games. This is an obvious stinker. The 4.7 rating from the users is about right on the money. The only thing that might stink more are those reviews giving this a 90 or 100 rating. Yep, somethin stinks.

The DRM is absolutely no issue for me, as one install is all that I will want to waste my precious time on, ever. The gameplay here is non-existent. I can go to armorgames.com and get more compelling gameplay from any one of those free flash games. This is an obvious stinker. The 4.7 rating from the users is about right on the money. The only thing that might stink more are those reviews giving this a 90 or 100 rating. Yep, somethin stinks.

:agree: Amen to that, bro.

^^^^ Ditto. DRM is a side issue as the game stinks anyways. :)

The publisher sends out early copies to review magazines os they can ahve the reviews quicker and the unse them in commerical. For instance When commercials say "EGM 8/10".

I really disagree with people who say that DRM should not be considered in reviewing a game. It's part of the product. Just like glitches and a load of incredible bugs should be mentioned in a review.

I haven't got the game and have pretty much only read the comments on this sub forum and it sounds like a 7 would be a reasonable review. The DRM is an issue but EA apparently unluck it if you phone - not sure if they will do this in five years time? The game works, a reasonable chunk of posters seem to enjoy it and the backlash seems to be from people who brought the game expecting it to live up to the hype without waiting for a decent number of reviews.

AFAIK There was a company that was blackmailed by Sony to improve a rating. They published the poor rating anyway along with Sony's threat (they were warned they would be made give their preview PS3 back [This was before it was out]). I heard about this when my favorite games magazine posted an artice congratulating the other magazine for publishing. Strangely enough that issue had 50% less ads.

I haven't got the game and have pretty much only read the comments on this sub forum and it sounds like a 7 would be a reasonable review. The DRM is an issue but EA apparently unluck it if you phone - not sure if they will do this in five years time? The game works, a reasonable chunk of posters seem to enjoy it and the backlash seems to be from people who brought the game expecting it to live up to the hype without waiting for a decent number of reviews.

Problem is, there IS a decent number of reviews. That's the point of this thread, the reviews are extremely misleading, giving the impression of false scores. That's what this thread is about. :)

As for the game, yes a lot of people like it, but everyone says the same thing. The game lacks real depth, it's EXTREMELY repetitive, there are many bugs, and they are unsure how long it will amuse them to play. A lot of people feel ripped off too as a lot of stuff that was guarenteed to be in the game are not (eg: water phase, flora editor, cell editor, breakdown of stats on your creatures in other player's galaxies, etc).

That's why people are complaining. DRM is just another problem on the pile of stinking horse . .. .. .. . that is Spore. :)

It is pretty interesting especially since the users listed # 823 and the critics listed # 43. Those are pretty big samples for both. I wouldn't automatically say it was that the critics were bribed or something, just that the standards of a professional critic and those of the average user were widely different.

My own opinions tend to agree with metacritic so I tend to use it buy games myself.

It's interesting that metacritic comes up with an 85 score from reviewers while the metacritic users rate it 4.7 out of 10. That's a pretty wide gap.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore

This isn't the first time I've seen some highly suspect reviews. It seems to be more and more common in the game industry in the last few years. Never trust a review that is written before the game is released. How did the reviewer get an early copy? Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly? I would think that they would have to know what the result will be to take that chance.

I bought the galactic edition because all the regular copies were sold out. Now I'm feeling buyers remorse. I suppose the DRM rules out selling it used on ebay?

Okay, calling Spore a 'stinking pile of horse****' is going way too far, even if it is sarcastic.

It isn't going too far, and I wasn't being sarcastic.

How did the reviewer get an early copy?
Publishers tend to give review sites early copies

Why would a publisher give an early copy to someone who might rate it poorly?
Bribes. There's a reason why every review site gives perfect scores to games like Halo 3. The game gets hype, the site gets money, everyone benefits

PrinceScamp found an interesting article about this sort of thing a few months back. Here it is:

Game Reviews: the ugly path from publisher to publishing (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080601-game-reviews-the-ugly-path-from-publisher-to-publishing.html)

So probably not 'bribes', then. Or 'payola'. Just a few... subtle hints. If you're reviewing this much-hyped EA game, you're not going to pan it too much, are you - they might remove you from the 'exclusive' list. Also 'new-game syndrome' probably plays a part.

So probably not 'bribes', then. Or 'payola'. Just a few... subtle hints. If you're reviewing this much-hyped EA game, you're not going to pan it too much, are you - they might remove you from the 'exclusive' list. Also 'new-game syndrome' probably plays a part.

Sounds like Washington or [insert your capital here] ;)

PrinceScamp found an interesting article about this sort of thing a few months back. Here it is:

Game Reviews: the ugly path from publisher to publishing (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080601-game-reviews-the-ugly-path-from-publisher-to-publishing.html)

So probably not 'bribes', then. Or 'payola'. Just a few... subtle hints. If you're reviewing this much-hyped EA game, you're not going to pan it too much, are you - they might remove you from the 'exclusive' list. Also 'new-game syndrome' probably plays a part.

Yeah, this article outlines the circumstances that I suspected. What this means is that in general, professional reviews are worthless these days and should be ignored in favor of user reviews. It's a real shame too because that was not always the case.

It isn't going too far, and I wasn't being sarcastic.It stops here. This game can give you more entertainment than what you've described... and if it's otherwise, I'll leave you with your fecal fetish. ;)

It stops here. This game can give you more entertainment than what you've described... and if it's otherwise, I'll leave you with your fecal fetish. ;)

Entertainment?

Cell:
A moderately successful pacman. The enemies even act like those simple 1980's ghosts in that once they lock onto you they'll ignore the 100 other smaller prey they swim past to get you.

Path to success:
Have both mouths, and an extra set of flangella. Eat anything and fast enough to outswim anything. Completion time 5 minutes.

Creature:
A basic first-person shooter where your only actions are befriend, kill or eat. If you're a carnivore, then you must kill to eat. Whilst the environment is amazing (great job Maxis) there is literally no reality in the animals of the planet. No roaming, no extincting between species, no diversification, just isolated pockets of as many different types of similar creatures as can be stuffed into the land. There's no migration patterns (except a very crude "you must move" mission), no feeding paths, or any other forms of animal evolution (other animals don't evolve).

Path to success:
If you're a carnivore, befriending is hard. Your mouth just can't sing. But you can eat. So just kill everything. If you're a herbivore or omnivore you have both options to end in one of three places: killer, suck-up or in between. Completion time: 20 minutes (though you can spend another hour or two as it's the only enjoyment you'll get from this point on).

Note: this is the best level and does provide some entertainment.

Tribal:
An EXTREMELY crappy RTS. It doesn't even come close to the fun of pong. It is literally THE WORST GAME IN THE WORLD! The AI doesn't not interact with other AI's. There is no diplomacy. The AI is programmed to hate you and attack you. It will literally, within 60 seconds of you giving them a gift, hate you and attack again. The AI will NOT retain neutral relations if you gift them.

Path to success:
Gift, tune, tune. Gift, tune, tune. It gets boring by the third tribe so it's a CHORE! Gift, tune, tune. Zero losses, zero kills, EXTREMELY simple. Completion time: 8 minutes.

Civ:
Refer to Tribal. Exactly the same, except you use vehicles instead of creatures. Here, the method is only different. If you've been a predominant killer, you use military. If you've been a predominant friend, you use religion. Both of these styles play exactly the same. Build a crap load of units and attack city by city. If you get the misfortune of having to be a trader, good luck trying to finish the level. The only way you can win is to buy other cities. Impossible if the other teams are attacking you. You can't defend yourself.

Path to success:
Make sure you are military or religious. Build take over, build take over. The same as Tribal, by the third city it's a CHORE again! Blah! End the level using the super weapon. Thank god for the quick ending, or you'd have to end your own life! Completion time: 20 minutes.

Space:
For some people, space is the salvation of the game. For me it's not. Once again, it's the same sh1t repeating itself. Explore, meet someone, deny outrageous demands for money, they declare war. Every 5 minutes race back to one of your useless planet colonies to defend against a stupid raid or attack, or bio-disaster. Rinse and repeat. By this stage of the game you're ready to beg the wife to let you vaccum or wash the dishes, as at least those chores have a good outcome!

The sum of all parts:
We were promised a game of evolution. What we got was a game full of crap mini-games that except for cell and creature hold no link between each other. Cell and creature are the only two levels with any form of evolution/development in them. The other levels are static in there is no evolution, development or advancement. You only expand.

Conclusion:
Spore is a steaming pile of horse sh1t. :)

It's a shame that out of this entire "game" the only entertainment value is in the first 30 minutes. :(

Out of the $100 I paid, I value this game at $20. And that's the REAL problem!

Wait, so horse excrement is worth more than Spore, and you value Spore at 20 dollars? If you're serious, give me an address, and we can set up a mutually profitable trade relationship! :D

Wait, so horse excrement is worth more than Spore, and you value Spore at 20 dollars? If you're serious, give me an address, and we can set up a mutually profitable trade relationship! :D

That's the best you got? Puh-lease! :lol:

BTW, you should visit your local nursery. The cost of horse crap is quite high these days. I hear it works wonders on roses. It is evident that horse crap has more usefulness than Spore then. :mischief:

Well, you just said that Spore = Horse Feces. Then you note that Horse Feces is actually quite valuable. Mexed missages Dale, mexed missages!

Yes, but there is a difference between the value of horse poo as a computer game and horse poo as a rose fertilizer. And the value of Spore as a computer game and Spore as a rose fertilizer is the same for both: zero.

In context, the value of horse poo as a computer game is zero, so I was actually being nice to Spore giving it a higher value. :)

I tried putting horse crap in the CD drive one time... not much fun. So horse crap should not be used for entertainment purposes...

EDIT: On a side note, Spore is so disappointing to me (since I think it has great potential as a game concept), that it makes me want to do better (at least in terms of gameplay)... I don't think a civ mod would work too well eventhough I remember a mildly entertaining Civ2 mod from years ago that ran through the course of evolution on Earth. But it makes me want to try my hand with something a bit trickier than modding a game. So maybe it does have some uses after all! An inspiration for others to do better!

Dale, seriously, you're just bothering me. Spore has value as a computer game, or you wouldn't care enough to maintain a conversation about it.

Seriously mate, you have your opinion, I have mine. I am hoping that EA/Maxis fix the game without additional cost to me, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

But then it can surprise you.

I fail to see how you can deny that the game is poor. There is no strategy, no thinking, no synergy between sections of the game. All up it's my opinion there's some poor design decisions in it. And that's seriously detracts from the entertainment value for me.

If you don't like my opinion, stiff.

The gameplay is not revolutionary, it is not deep, and it can be repetitive- however, the capacity for creativity and content-sharing is unrivalled.

My issue isn't what you are saying in your latest post- it's just the literal comparison of Spore to horse dung. Not even the worst game is as bad as a pile of it, unless the only parameter on which you judge things is how well they create fertilizer.

Ahh..... now it's all clear. A "cultural confusion". :)

I am not literally comparing Spore to a steaming pile. The analogy of using that reference (as we use it in Australia) is an expression of my displeasure with the game. We Aussies like to express in extremes, such as "so hungry I could eat a horse", or "dry as a dead dingo", or "as crap as a steaming pile of ..". I was mearly using the phrase to express my opinion, not as a literal translation.

Sorry for any confusion caused. :)

I like this conversation because I'm learning lots of Aussie slang :)

Alright- that clears this mess up, in more ways than one. ;)

Alright- that clears this mess up, in more ways than one. ;)

Really? As for me, I'm completely :crazyeye:'ed

Really? As for me, I'm completely :crazyeye:'ed

That's okay, you're French Canadian, we didn't really expect you to follow. ;)