Spore: A Failure?

[TC01]

First two games (the first one I stopped halfway and decided to start fresh) were fun.

Second game was a little less fun (still fun because I was trying out different things).

Third, fourth, fifth, and six games were successively less fun.

Seventh game (which I played recently) was not fun.

Does that make the game a failure? I don't know. But it certaintly isn't a "great game", or even a "good game", if this is the case.

 

[GoodGame]

First two games (the first one I stopped halfway and decided to start fresh) were fun.

Second game was a little less fun (still fun because I was trying out different things).

Third, fourth, fifth, and six games were successively less fun.

Seventh game (which I played recently) was not fun.

Does that make the game a failure? I don't know. But it certaintly isn't a "great game", or even a "good game", if this is the case.

Replayability is an interesting arguement. It does show that Spore is lacking in game-play if both it lacks replayability, and a single play is over pretty quick (or just gets deleted). I'd say that is the case with spore.

I wouldn't downrate a game just for lack of replayability though, but more in the overall entertainment value--which might cynically be hours played vs. $$$ spent. Though not sure what the subjective measure of 'good' and 'great' would be here. I think 40 hours per $50 would be good, while a game at 100 hours+ would be 'great' at $50.

 

[Soda7777777]

First two games (the first one I stopped halfway and decided to start fresh) were fun.

Second game was a little less fun (still fun because I was trying out different things).

Third, fourth, fifth, and six games were successively less fun.

Seventh game (which I played recently) was not fun.

Does that make the game a failure? I don't know. But it certaintly isn't a "great game", or even a "good game", if this is the case.

As I've said before, when I first played Spore I actually liked the game. About two weeks later, I hated the game. It just has really redundant gameplay, and it's basically the same thing over and over and over. The space stage is just stupid. All you do is go around trading resources, with one little ship.

 

[Duuk]

Jumping in late...

Spore has almost 0 replay value for me, for many of the reasons noted.

1) How your creature is built and designed is essentially worthless. Just stick the hands somewhere and pick the right mouth.

2) Dumbed down. Many things that don't matter but are repetetive.

3) Once you've done it once... it's the same thing, and you can't even "story mode" it like you can in Sims.

I consider myself only slightly above a casual gamer. Games like Spore play to the least common denominator rather than playing to strengths. I play games from The Sims to Civ4, I've modded for Civ4, Paradox games, etc. And Spore just couldn't hold my interest. I regret spending the money.

 

[exhile]

I'm glad I didn't buy this game. The Civilization series rules....

 

[pagh80]

For me spore was fun the first time i played through it. The following 2 games were much less fun as there are almost no variations in how you play it. Everything is soo dumbed down.

I have to say i was blown away of just how big the world if(10.000+ solar systems.... wow)
You could make a incredible empire/strategy/trading game with that huge world size, but unfortunately its soo dumbed down that if becomes boring instead.
Imagine a civilization kind of game with 100s of unknown civilizations to meet, ally and go to war with.

The game have a crapload of potential, but its too simple to be fun for me, and the space phase is just... stupid. One ship to do it all? come on...

 

[W|M]

At least in X3: TC, you can actually fly multiple ships and build humungous complexes in space. And there are loads of different ship types. The space stage should be more like that.

 

[bombshoo]

The fact the game was pretty much advertised and sold to me as a strategy game where every choice mattered (which also implies lots of replay value) only for it to be almost the opposite of that really ticked me off. The first go-around was fun. It was when I did the second one and tried to take a completely different route only to have it be the same as the first one did I feel ripped off.

 

[sophie]

I wonder what this game would've been like if Sid had done it

I remember I was thinking about buying this game about a month ago. I was on the fence because I wasn't sure if I'd keep playing it after the first play through. From the look at this feedback, I'm rather glad I opted not to buy the game.

 

[Chiyochan]

I wonder what this game would've been like if Sid had done it

I remember I was thinking about buying this game about a month ago. I was on the fence because I wasn't sure if I'd keep playing it after the first play through. From the look at this feedback, I'm rather glad I opted not to buy the game.

it would have been passable, cid's kind of a conservative in the designing department, spore was a radical idea, so i don't know how good it would be if he designed it, but it certainly wouldn't deliver much new.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I wonder what this game would've been like if Sid had done it

I remember I was thinking about buying this game about a month ago. I was on the fence because I wasn't sure if I'd keep playing it after the first play through. From the look at this feedback, I'm rather glad I opted not to buy the game.

If Wright had 100% designed it, it would have been better. Spore and Sims 3 are the reasons why he left. It's obvious in both that he didn't get as big a role as planned. Sims 3 plays more like a console Sims title than a real sims game, and Spore... we all know how Spore turned out.

 

[sophie]

I'm saying it from the perspective that Sid's games tend not to shy away from the complex. So I was wondering what it would be like if Sid designed the game from a complexity aspect.

Though yeah, I really enjoyed the Sims, I have memories of playing the first one for hours, but I gotta be honest, I really hated the latest iteration

 

[The Almighty dF]

I'm saying it from the perspective that Sid's games tend not to shy away from the complex. So I was wondering what it would be like if Sid designed the game from a complexity aspect.

Though yeah, I really enjoyed the Sims, I have memories of playing the first one for hours, but I gotta be honest, I really hated the latest iteration

Same. I -loved- 1 & 2. 3 though... I feel I don't have as much control.
I can't alter the faces as much, less of a selection of hairs, it's -extremely- awkward having more than one family, I can't change up the neighborhood (I can only play on -two- neighborhoods, even.)
Graphically, it's better. Gameplay wise, it's a big step down.

 

[Silv Something]

How is the Sims 3?

Spore was great in 2005. By 2008, .
It was a great loss for me. . My main site is now dead because of how much Spore sucked.

 

[mythmonster2]

IMO, Sims 3 is a great addition to the Sims series. Keeps some of the old, adds some new. Good game.

 

[Silv Something]

Oh good. Maybe once I get a new computer I will get it.

 

[Soda7777777]

The sims 3 really was not good at all, you can only have 1 family. The graphics are really bad for 2009 standards. Plus you barely get any items, and EA excepts us to buy the items they have on their online store. The game was not made for people to enjoy, but for EA to make money in a really douchebaggy way. Oh and the game is really glitchy, even if you have a computer that is above the standards of the game it will freeze and be obnoxious.

 

[sophie]

The sims 3 really was not good at all, you can only have 1 family. The graphics are really bad for 2009 standards. Plus you barely get any items, and EA excepts us to buy the items they have on their online store. The game was not made for people to enjoy, but for EA to make money in a really douchebaggy way. Oh and the game is really glitchy, even if you have a computer that is above the standards of the game it will freeze and be obnoxious.

*sigh* It's sad to say, but I'm afraid that's what video games are going to turn into. I fear that we will begin to see more and more PC games available only through programs like Steam, with practically criminal DRM programs bundled in, and to top it all off, the vanilla game will include only about half of the game with the rest of it marketed as "expansion packs".

Yes, I realize they've been doing that for years. But before, at least, you couldn't tell as easily, and it wasn't done over the course of 5-10 expansion packs like The Sims historically has been.

 

[Legioona]

After finally getting the game and playing a couple of games it didn't fill up the expectations at all. For a hardcore RTS player the two phases before the Saucer one felt like a really half-assed build up. Up until tribal the game felt fun and somewhat innovative (*cough*E.V.O.*cough*) but after that the two next stages were in my opinion really poorly designed and dull. Tribal stage was basically poor AOE clone with little to no strategy involved, all I had to do against every enemy village on the map was to attack after their rush. I literally managed to clear the whole phase with only the Stone Axe building in my village. The AI was terrible too, I can't even recall all the times I was microing one weak unit to lead the idiotic NPC's following it to certaing doom - and I played each game on Hard for Pete's sake!

The Civilizationesque phase for an aggressive player like myself was more like a really poorly designed internet Risk than anything else. The only point was to pump military with all you resources and expand faster than the computer. Each time I tried a more methodical approach by investing more time & money on city develoment instead of just building up Houses whenever I needed them, I ended up being bulldozed but the CPU who instead had concentrated all of it's resources on expanding. With only one resource, three unit types and redicilous diplomatic options there's really no way to have an intresting game against the Computer if you had fallen behind in the early steges.

I have to admit though that the final stage of the game is pretty cool. I haven't ran into any other Civilizations yet so I can't really comment how the galaxy-spanning diplomatic relations & conflict work but exploring the seemingly endless universe and spreading your influence within it is indeed pretty darn cool.

I guess my main gripe with this game is that everything before the Saucer-stuff is basically just a really boring, poorly desinged build up. Well, the cell-stage and the one in which you control a small pack of animals are sort of entertaining but in a hindsight they lacked the dept too. I think Spore just had it's goals set a bit too high. I don't know how much more time in the drawing board would have helped but I guess it would've not harmed the final product either. I honestly think that if they had just concentrated on the galactic stage the game would've been loads better. Less is more I guess.

 

[Soda7777777]

I think EA cared more about the graphics of the game, than actual gameplay. Like the graphics are ing great, but the game itself just sucked ass. I admit to liking it at first, but after about a week I realized that it was kinda dull and repetitive.