The dumbification of Spore

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/the_dumbification_of_spore.php

by hhm • 18 years ago

43 27 18 years ago

hhm• 18 years ago

And this is interesting: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/5225.page "Thoughts on Spore from an ex-Maxis intern."

mechanical_fish2• 18 years ago

This puts words and an explanation to the sinking feeling that I had earlier this year, as I compared the reviews of the release version of Spore to the Wil Wright demos and lectures of previous years. It turns out that the lectures were by the "science team", but the final game is more influenced by the "cute team".

Too bad.

tptacek3• 18 years ago

On the other hand, think of how much time a really good game could have sucked out of your life.

unalone6• 18 years ago

I dunno. You could argue the same about the works of Shakespeare, Citizen Kane, The Big Lebowski, and on. Really, you could say that anything great is a time drain. (I'm about to start watching all of The Wire, which is a hundred-some hours long. But from what I've heard, it'll be worth it.)

I'd have preferred something great, and then decided not to play it if I wanted to spend my time more wisely. There's no excuse for what Spore became.

dangrover• 18 years ago

The reason I was disappointed with Spore wasn't because it was fun at the expense of being scientifically inaccurate... it's because it wasn't all that fun period.

I enjoyed most of the Sim games because they give you a complex system with rules where every little decision has some slight impact on the way the game turns out. Part of winning is learning the rules to the system and strategizing (whether or not that system really reflect the reality of what it is ostensibly a simulation of).

There are too many things in Spore that don't make any difference in the gameplay. Most of the influence from one stage to the next is purely aesthetic or otherwise very limited. And everything except the Space stage was pretty simplistic with few opportunities for strategy.

unalone6• 18 years ago

Yeah. I mean, I love The Sims 2. Still have it installed: it was one of the few games, other than Civ2 and Pharoah and Lords of the Realm that I moved over. And I love it because it's so incredibly detailed. So intricate. Everything combines into everything else. And Spore PROMISED that. I was expecting to have to balance different types of flora to maintain the ecological balance on my planets. At the very least, I was expecting some very intricate classes. Because that's FUN. Always has been.

Spore was one-dimensional, start to finish. (Though I didn't play too far on the space stage: from there I'd lost interest.) There was no interaction. I wanted the first stage to be the simplest. I wanted rapid iteration of complexity. Something for everybody. I got none of that.

It's a shame, because the technology was so incredible. It just went into an awful game.

DaniFong2• 18 years ago

It sounds like Will Wright wanted something like that too.

Have you ever played sim earth? I liked it a lot.

boredguy8• 18 years ago

And that's the downside of having to plop down $50 for a game.

I don't understand how the 'game industry' expects to beat piracy when it costs so much for so little assurance that you'll get what you want.

If this had been (nearly) any other product, I could have returned it, gotten my refund, and gone on my way.

unalone6• 18 years ago

This all reminds me of an interview that happened with Nintendo a year ago:

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol3_index.jsp

Mahito Yokota originally wrote the soundtrack as an homage to Mario 64: goofy and kid-friendly. Kondo told him to scrap it: he said that if you aimed for kids, you'd get a worse product than if you aimed for something with a more timeless feel. So he changed the music to a full orchestra, and the result was the brilliant soundtrack to Galaxy, which is incidentally absolutely worth owning.

Spore dumbed down and lost. It's a shame.

divia• 18 years ago

pg said almost the same exact thing about arc's design philosophy:

"Good design is timeless, and if you want something timeless you can't pander to the limitations of some hypothetical 'average' user. It's too vague a target. It's also a moving target: the average user might not be as stupid as you think." http://www.paulgraham.com/design.html

markessien• 18 years ago

When you design by consensus, you end up with this. When a single person is responsible for most of the major decisions on a project, the project will either spectacularly fail or will be amazing, depending on the genius of the person. But when you take the same genius, and force him to change his concept to bring in elements of more traditional people, you will tend to create a normal product.

Designing by consensus will always lead to an average product. The only way to create a blow-out success is if a single person handles the design part of things.

No major artwork was created by a comittee. None of the great books were written by a newsroom team. Engineering has to go the same way. Let people use their imaginations without being constrained by the opinions of tens of other people.

bobfunk• 18 years ago

I upvoted the comment, and definitively agree in general, but of course there's no rule without its exceptions. Half-life for example was very much designed by comittee, and we all know how that went ;)

mechanical_fish2• 18 years ago

No major artwork was created by a committee.

Actually, William "The Princess Bride" Goldman argues in his famous book about screenwriting (Adventures in the Screen Trade) that all movies are created by committee. He lists a bunch of people that need to do their jobs correctly in order to make a movie any good, starting (obviously) with the screenwriter and the director but also including: The cinematographer, the casting director, the designers and costumers, the film editor, and the composer. To say nothing of the producers, who need to come up with sufficient money or the film doesn't get made.

Goldman makes this point in the course of lampooning the "auteur" theory of criticism, in which entire films are attributed to the genius of one person -- usually the director. It's because of those auteur theorists that we tend to speak of "Hitchcock's" North by Northwest, ignoring the fact that a lot of that film's genius was contributed by Cary Grant, to say nothing of Bernard Herrmann.

A great example is Star Wars, which as we all know sprang from the brow of George Lucas. Except, of course, for the parts that were actually created by Ben Burtt (sound designer), John Dykstra (FX supervisor), Rick Baker (makeup artist), Ralph McQuarrie (production illustrator), John Williams (composer), and Richard Chew, Paul Hirsch and Marcia Lucas (film editors). And that's just scratching the surface.

A game on the scale of Spore is also, inevitably, created by committee. The question is whether you can keep the committee on the same page. It sounds like Spore's team had some struggles, which had to be mediated, and which were ultimately resolved in a way that isn't quite to my taste. Which is not to say that the enterprise is a failure. It's sold a lot of copies, and no doubt many people are pleased with it. I played with the creature creator, and it was very cute.

Tichy• 18 years ago

I have yet to test Spore, but I must admit that I am really a bit concerned about this. I suppose ultimately Spore is a product that will promote Creationism, and it targets kids.

Chocobean3• 18 years ago

Care to explain why Spore is a product that will promote Creationism?

There is simply no element of creationism in the game. All terminology and interface point to an (albeit inaccurate) model of "evolution". Guided evolution, panspermia, saltations, probably. Creationism, no.

On a tangent: Spore has specified organized religion as a viable route to planetary domination, on the same effectiveness level as economic and military take-overs. Elements of conversion and religious assimilation also comes into play in the space stage, somewhat. But even if I replace the word "Creationism" with the word "religion", your "think of the children!" sentiment is still...naive at best. One could equally ineffectively argue that the game promotes ruthless economic colonization, militaristic violence, wasteful exploitation of resources, intentional extinction of entire species.....

iamah• 18 years ago

Maybe the world was a better place if everybody overestimate people's intelligence. Evolution and long necks should be a hint.

teamonkey• 18 years ago

Spore isn't supposed to be a scientific simulation, it's a form of entertainment. Programmers tend to prefer their games to be strictly rule-based simulations, but that's not necessarily what the target audience want and it doesn't equate to good game design.

I'm not saying that Spore is perfect, just that it's very easy as a game developer to get carried away with stuff that you find cool, only to find there's no game there.

The irony is that Chris Hecker is pretty much the man who popularised (and evangelised) the use of simulated physics in games. Virtually all papers on inverse-kinematics in games reference his essays.

Chocobean3• 18 years ago

I agree with your comment that Spore is an entertainment game, not a scientific simulation, and I definitely see why EA went with the "entertaining art" version of Spore.

the only problem is that Spore wasn't advertised to many of us that way. We got a beautifully decorated cake, but wholesome multi-grain was promised to the masses who have been starving for the past 5 years.

fjl• 18 years ago

a summer spent playing with pattern language and cellular automata

if they had followed that route, the game would probably have been a lot more fun to play. games should really be done in an exploratory way, since what comes out is a universe of ideas, closed over itself.

The dumbification of Spore

Related Stories