Spore: A Failure?
- Thread starter salty mud
- Start date
salty mud
Deity
Indeed, the game went downhill from then on. The first time I played I got such a huge buzz when I seen the Cell Stage. Thirty minutes into the Creature Stage and I was beginning to realize I had maybe made a mistake in buying this game.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I think Spore's greatest failure is that it essentially released an ambitious framework of a game without the game itself. It's a great idea to have a user-customizable game, especially to the point where your customizations change the type of game it is, and to the point that you don't have to buy into aspects you don't want. But they failed materially, because those customizations weren't available at release; Instead we have to wait probably 6 months at a time, for the customizations.
Spore would have been criticized as a money pit, but lauded for game play, if we had all the expansions available at release of Spore, or at least by December 08. Meaning expansions for each stage of the game.
Alternatively, they probably should have focused most of the attention on one stage (probably Space), and stripping even more of the development time from the other stages, other than the editors. Easily, they could have made all the editors, focused on making Space fun, and then adding expansions backwards in the sequence (e.g. Civ stage, then Tribe, then Creature, then Cell).
As is, Spore is a Space conquest game with a big tease, with earlier stages as needless mini-games and an ad hoc civ-leveling system to make the player run through all the stages.
Spore would have been criticized as a money pit, but lauded for game play, if we had all the expansions available at release of Spore, or at least by December 08. Meaning expansions for each stage of the game.
Alternatively, they probably should have focused most of the attention on one stage (probably Space), and stripping even more of the development time from the other stages, other than the editors. Easily, they could have made all the editors, focused on making Space fun, and then adding expansions backwards in the sequence (e.g. Civ stage, then Tribe, then Creature, then Cell).
As is, Spore is a Space conquest game with a big tease, with earlier stages as needless mini-games and an ad hoc civ-leveling system to make the player run through all the stages.
mythmonster2
BEC NOIR! RUN!
I've played, it's OK. Space is my favorite stage, then Cell, Creature, Civ, and last is Tribal, which I absolutely hated!
salty mud
Deity
Just seen this, a quote from Will Wright:
What type of thing to say is that? He WANTS smaller sales and scores for his own game? This just seems like a half-assed attempt at sounding unsurprised that his game sucked.
What type of thing to say is that? He WANTS smaller sales and scores for his own game? This just seems like a half-assed attempt at sounding unsurprised that his game sucked.
No, The Sims 2 sold a lot more than Half-Life. So I guess he's saying he'd rather score a bit less but have much higher sales. That is, have a slightly (quite a bit, imo...) less complicated or intricate or "for hardcore gamers" game and sell to a larger audience...
Oruc
Reactionary
he never said he wanted smaller sales, he said he wants sims 2 sales repeated, which i'm pretty sure is more then Half Life's sales
Abaddon
Deity
Sims 2 sold tons tons ton
Pokurcz
Emperor
I am still pissed that I bought that piece of s game. The friggin dissapointment!
Zack
99% hot gas
I really like Spore, but it could have been so much more.
I'm a poet and didn't know it.
I'm a poet and didn't know it.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
I personally think Sims2 has more depth. It has more meaningful stats, for one thing. And every building and character can be part of the same game world, I like that. For all the time you spend, it all builds up and up... Whereas in Spore, you don't have much to play with in the first place, and most of it is wiped out at the start of each new stage. You can only meet NPC 'clones' of your species in other games.
Sims2 > Spore IMO. This is a very sad state of affairs because I would much rather be guiding evolution of species and flying through space.
Sims2 > Spore IMO. This is a very sad state of affairs because I would much rather be guiding evolution of species and flying through space.
salty mud
Deity
Half Life (1 at least) has sold on average one million copies a year, not counting downloaded sales over Steam or other outlets. Since it was released 11 years ago , I think that comfortably beats Sims 2 sales.
Whichever game you want to believe sold more, from his quote it is obvious that Will Right himself thought that the Sims 2 sold significantly more than Half Life.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Evolution should have featured (more). IMO, there should be very few creatures plugged straight into the game (at least, not on your home planet). Things should start off simple like your cell/ceature, and evolve according to certain logical rules (certain responses to what is causing them most injury/deaths). The user content can act as 'targets' which creatures evolve towards, but the end result is something cross-bred with the conditions on your own planet, which can then be uploaded and shared again... Yes, the game should generate its own creatures! With much branching out in different directions, as well as mass extinctions...
I'd tolerate less freedom in designing creatures, in order to see this happen - a world that actually evolves as you play. Why not have the land surface gradually shifting, rising and falling too? The technology already exists in the game engine, as seen in the terraforming tools in the space age. All basic 'Parts' should be available, and you can buy more advanced parts in your next generation, instead of randomly searching for mystical skeletons. And needless to say, species should have populations that rise and fall also, sometimes swarming in huge numbers, and be able to migrate across the planet. And when you lay an egg, it should just be for increasing population. Only if you have gained enough new DNA and if enough time has passed should you be able to click on your egg to evolve the next generation. Maybe youd be searching for a mate with some slight mutation youd want for your offspring
So many what ifs!!!
Anyways, my actual main gripe is with the three stages after the creature phase. Today I had an epic session of installing and playing some old games - Rise of Nations, Ground Control II, Startopia, Warlords III and Galactic Civilizations #1. Startopia and GC2 in particular had really nice 3D graphics without being too demanding on hardware (a breeze on my new PC). They really put the civ stage in Spore to shame in terms of detail on screen. And in terms of gameplay, I'm also thinking back to games that were out 10 years ago like Settlers III and Populous: The Beginning (one of my favourite games of all, with people living on 3D spherical planets, just a shame it doesn't seem to work on any OS above Windows '98). And nearly 20 years ago (when I was very little), those early Amiga strategy games like the Populous I, Warmonger and Mega Lo Mania, which had simplicity (out of necessity) but depth and replayability too.
From creatures to space, there's just so much out there they could have copied from - game concepts that have already been thought out and tested for decades - while still kept things relatively simple. Although I do enjoy Spore, it's really a shame to think what could have been. As other's have said, its bitter-sweet.
/rant
Just to say this: LifeNES III + The Civilized Zone + ZPNES A Brave New Galaxy >>>>>> Spore.
Of course, Part 2 and 3 are eagerly waiting!
Soda7777777
Warlord
Spore isn't that good. The only good thing I can say about it is the graphics in the space phase. The nebulae are beautiful. But the actual game is horrible. It treats the player as if their an idiot. This may be good for noobs, but for hardcore gamers it's not good. Civ4 is by far much better. Although civ has it's flaws, it is still amazing.
Will Wright should have stuck with the Sims. The Sims is so much better and so much more creative.
The Sims is much more creative, and allows for more choice in it.
Will Wright should have stuck with the Sims. The Sims is so much better and so much more creative.
The Sims is much more creative, and allows for more choice in it.
salty mud
Deity
He would be wrong.
Hopping in your spaceship and cruising the galaxy did have a charm of its own, I must admit. Some of the graphical effects, especially the likes as seen from planets or moons, are fantastic. Creative wise, this must be one of the most creative games relased... you can customise your creature down to a minute detail, their clothing, houses, buildings, music, spaceships, vehicles etc... What exactly do you mean?
Soda7777777
Warlord
Well the game does have a lot of creativity, and yes that is a good thing. But the logic of it is not very good. For example if you put a leg on an animals head, it would still have the same affect as putting a leg on their wast. I guess what I'm trying to say is the game is not very logical in it's approach.
Abaddon
Deity
By the fact this is the most active thread in Spore.. i'd say YES!
Soda7777777
Warlord
say we to what
