Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Logo Quality

The logo currently illustrated on the article is VERy low quality, probably a Bitmap image (MSPaint). Can somone get a higher-quality version? Thanks, Johnnywalterboy (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to genre

JAF1970, you said "But you can't post god game / life sim / real-time strategy / economic simulation / grand strategy game / etc. in the infobox.". That again can be solved by naming it a simulation game. Skele (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that would be wrong. Spore is a god game, and not a simulation - someone could suggest calling Spore a strategy and be more in the right than calling it a simulation, and they'd be wrong too. No one calls Falcon 4.0 a "simulation" even though it's a flight sim. No one calls Warcraft III a strategy game, even though it's an RTS. And Spore is called by every. single. major. article. a god game. Pure and simple. JAF1970 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore Could Be the Greatest God Game Ever, Inquirer, Hands-On with Will Wright's "Spore", BusinessWeek, Game Master, The New Yorker, GameSpot's "god game" metatag, St. Louis Today ...The "God game is one of the few in its genre to arrive on Mac, ... about Will Wright's upcoming god game, Spore. Oh, and let's get to another thing that was forgotten: have you played Spore? How do you know what genre it is? From experience? I'll go by Wright, EA, the media, etc. They've actually had time wiith the game. You haven't. JAF1970 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When will you learn how to read. If god game is a sub-genre for simulation game and you say strategy game would be a better calling for Spore then youre saying it should be named strategy game instead of god game. And again MANY of your citations say it's more than a god game. And again I have to explain this to you ANYONE who has registered to Gamespot can make a tag on some game and the first words on Gamespot are "Spore is a simulation game created by Will Wright that allows players to control various life forms from the cellular to the galactic level." Warcraft 3 is called an RTS instead of strategy game because it is a more detailed and specific explanation for it. If you name Spore only a "god game" it would narrow it's true aspect VERY much. Skele (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "more than a god game". It is a god game. And I'm still waiting to hear your gameplaying experiences. Or, fighting off an evil robot species that invades your planet during a sequence described as Space Invaders is your idea of a sim. Have you ever played a sim, by the way, like a flight simulator? This is not a sim, you haven't played Spore, you're basing it on personal feelings and not what everyone who's actually TOUCHED the game, let alone played it says. Sorry, but I provided solid proof. You haven't. Wikipedia doesn't define reality - reality defines Wikipedia. Stop having the tail wag the dog. I can define every genre as a sim if I want to. DOOM is a sim which simulates being a space marine in Hell. So is Civilization - you're simulating being an omniscient 4,000 year old ruler guiding his nation through history - which is, by the way, more or less what you do in Spore, only it's billions of years. Hm. What kind of game puts you in the role of an intelligence that guides the survival of a species to sentience, using strategy elements in the latter phase of the game that resembles SimCity and Civilization and Master of Orion? HMMM. (Hint: It's not a sim.) JAF1970 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, "fighting off an evil robot species that invades your planet during a sequence described as Space Invaders" is your idea of a god game? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and flipflopping from saying, "IT'S NOT A GOD GAME!" to "IT'S A GOD GAME, BUT IT'S A SIM, TOO!" is a silly argument. You don't call Warcraft III a "strategy" game. It's a real-time strategy game. Otherwise, you're saying there's no difference between Warcraft III and Civilization IV, since they're both strategy games, RIGHT? JAF1970 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What's it like to play God?, Bryan Appleyard Of Times Online (UK) Tries Out Spore Bryan calls it a god game after actually playing it. But we all know the London Times is some two-bit paper, just like the New York Times. JAF1970 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I always have to repeat myself. Well, no I haven't had any gaming experience with Spore except cellular cell spore. But have you had? Even if you have had could you say it's a god game with your derranged mind? And by the way the space marine in Doom is on mars not hell. This is not an argument it's a debate, but you are making it an argument by repeating yourself and making us repeat ourselves. I already said why Warcraft 3 is called a RTS instead of strategy game. You still haven't given me solid proof. I have shot down many of your statements and the ones left I have equalled with my own citations. You say Spore is a god game but many of youre statements reflect the words "Spore is more than a god game" Skele (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil please, don't need to be calling an editor deranged. Nanobri (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. He's just getting on my nerve. Skele (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Please, Skele, do not be incorrect. It is an obvious God game. Also, I'm guessing you played a fan-made version of the cell stage. Even if you played the real thing, the cell stage isn't the bulk of the game, it is a tutorial. The cell stage isn't a God game, but the bulk of the game, the space phase- the phase that plays FOREVER- is. 70.143.51.122 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I think Will Wright got the idea out of cellular cell spore or that it was a demo of phase one, but that is irrelevant now. On the last phase you control a space ship so you're not in the role of god. It may seem obvious but it also seems obvious for many other people for Spore to be called simulation game. Skele (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Skele here. To quote Captain Kirk, "Why does God need a spaceship?" Microbe/Creature editor = god game. Vehicle/Building/Spaceship editor = simulation. Pacman/Diablo <> god game, though maybe <> simulation either. Dropping items in front of tribal creatures = god game. Simcity/Civ = simulation. Dropping monoliths and genesis devices = god game, but abducting/scanning creatures, blowing up planets with a weapon, running a SETI program, all <> god game. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap yeap. Just like at the E3 presentation. Skele (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm just joining the discussion. But having studied genres in detail, there's a few things to consider:

• There is no real "Simulation" genre. Really there's games, and there's simulations. Games are gameyer. Simulations are more realistic. People talk about sports sims, racing sims, dating sims... there are three major simulation genres: Construction and Management Simulations, Vehicle simulation games, and Life simulations. In other words, saying this is a "simulation" is about as helpful as saying "this is a computer game".
• I could see why Spore is a Construction and management simulation game. You "build, expand or manage fictional communities or projects with limited resources". It has a Sim City element, even if you're not dealing with money. You do have to manage some kind of resources, right? Like building materials or god-power or something?
• I could see why Spore is a real time strategy game. There's a wargaming element. A lot of strategy games include features from construction and management simulation games. The difference is that a pure CMS will be like Tropico or Sim City where you play essentially by yourself. Other strategy games involve playing against an opponent, even an AI opponent. Which is part of the wargame aspect of Spore.
• I could see why Spore is a life simulation game. It involves a simulation of an ecosystem. You spend a LOT of time controlling one or more artificial lives, rather than managing things from the top down.
• God Games are themselves a tricky thing to classify. Right now they're grouped under Construction and Management Simulation Games -- which includes City-Building games. Actraiser is a good example of a God game -- you're literally a God, but you're building a city. But at the same time, I've heard God games classified as Life simulation games too. A lot of life simulations are more about overseeing a simulated ecosystem or social system, as you direct it toward some goal.
• Heck, it even has action elements. Doesn't the game start with you running around, dodging and eating stuff?

The truth is Spore is probably a hybrid game. That doesn't help you very much. Once you throw around a word like "hybrid" in there, the temptation is for several morons to keep amending the info box until it's cluttered as all hell: "strategy life construction management simulator with action elements". If I had to really pick one, it would probably be a God game (whether the God Game subgenre ultimately falls under a CMS or a life simulation game). But the fact that you don't always experience the game as a God kind of messes this up from a purist sense. Randomran (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem

Another quick comment that summarizes where this debate comes from. Look at Will Wright's inspiration:

• Pac-Man for the tide pool phase: Action game (maze game subgenre)
• Diablo for the creature phase: Action game (hack n' slash subgenre)
• Populous for the tribal phase: God game (VERY tricky. God games might be life simulators or construction and management simulators. And populous has RTS elements too, as you compete against a rival tribe.)
• SimCity, Risk, and Civilization for the civilization phase: Construction and Management Simulation, Strategy Game
• SimEarth ... for the space phase, with elements of sandbox gameplay: Life simulation game, of which God game might be a subgenre. Again, that's tricky.

Beep! Beep! Hold up. Did you notice the MASTERS OF ORION description? JAF1970 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would fully concede that the strongest element in this game is the God game element. I think most articles will call this a God game. But I think you'll find lots of other articles calling it all kinds of things. I think the real question here isn't what genre it falls under, but how you plan on preventing the infobox from getting spammed with all of them. It speaks to the broader issue of how to handle a truly multifaceted hybrid game? Randomran (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What if we have the Genre field in the infobox simply say "See below" with a target link to the section of the article that describes the genre-breaking aspects of the game? This might satisfy all parties. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 09:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not many have called it a god game. Many articles have called it a life sim, evolution, simulation or a strategy game. Dansimans solution might be the best. But I'm still wondering why Randomran said there really is no simulation game genre when many of his statements were under simulation game? Skele (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The "what's a simulation game" debate is a whole side issue... but there's no real consistent gameplay to "simulations" anymore than there's consistent gameplay to "games". "Baseball Simulator 1.000", "Sim City", "America's Army", "Animal Crossing", and "Microsoft Flight Simulator" are all simulations and have absolutely NO gameplay in common. There are several genres of simulation, just as there are several genres of game. See the video game genres article. The two main genres you should look at "3 Construction and management simulation" and "4 Life simulation", each which have several subgenres.

If the question is "is it a God game or is it a Life simulation game", the answer is it might be both. God games are arguably a subgenre of life simulation game. (It's the equivalent of arguing about whether Doom is an FPS or an action game.) I think "Rollings, Andrew; Ernest Adams (2006). Fundamentals of Game Design. Prentice Hall" discusses where God games lie, and defines them. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of this book, though. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, Randomran, Sillygostly, what do you each think of having "see below" in the infobox? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not crazy about it... but I wouldn't be against it either. "Multi-Genre (see below)" would not be original research, and would be neutral and verifiable. In that sense, it's not bad. Randomran (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thing - all of that is irrelevent, when Will Wright, EA, the media (NY Times, LA Times, New Yorker, etc), and the public all call it a god game. It's a god game because you always assume the role of an omniscient being who guides the development of a species throughout the game. Keep something in mind: once again, do not have the tail wagging the dog. Wikipedia does not define terms in the real world. Wikipedia is defined by terms in the real world. If Will Wright calls it a god game, as do all the other sources, it's a god game.

FURTHERMORE, I acknowledged the other elements of gameplay in the Gameplay section, and the other modes of gameplay have been described in the description of each phase (like Pac-Man, like Diablo, etc) as defined by the guy designing the game. The other types of genres that the game touches on have been already mentioned. The infobox only needs the one, overall, arcing genre: god game. The rest have been acknowledged. Skele just seems to want to drag out this argument when the resolution has already been made.

THIRDLY, Skele, no one has played Spore yet (hands-on brief previews aside) save people at Maxis. Unless you've actually played it yourself, you have no basis for your opinion. Not only are you attempting to do original research (which is a no-no), but it's baseless original research. The life sim element could be so shallow as to make it not really a life sim. Wright calls the first phase "just like Pac-Man". Is Pac-Man a life sim? After all, you play a creature that must eat to survive and has other creatures trying to eat HIM.

The fact is this: it's considered a god game (the "ultimate" god game by many publications), and all of the other aspects in the game are there. But life sim? Only the first two phases. It's a god game in the infobox, that's it. The Gameplay section lists the other genres right off the bat. JAF1970 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When will you get it Jaf, you do NOT win a debate by repeating yourself. None of this is irrelevant. You say Will Wright has said it's a god game well he has also said it's many other things when he was at E3. Then you say you have spoken to him and he says it's a god game. How do we know you ain't bluffing or has he again said it's more. Everything Wright has said are written in articles across the globe. Not even half of the EA pages have said it's only a god game. Not so many newspaper articles have said it's only a god game. Jaf according to your statement every game should be named a god game, for in every game you control something. Then to Randomran, yes I have read the wikipedia articles and many of them reflect that Spore is more than a god game. I'm saying Spore is more than a god game that does not block out that it is a god game. AND for the fourth time "Biological simulations may allow the player to experiment with genetics, survival or ecosystems, often in the form of an educational package."-life simulation game- JAF1970, This means that phase 5 is a life sim. Skele (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All this debate might be irrelevant. If you read Rollings book, I think it actually might even say "God games are a type of life simulation game". I can't confirm though, because I don't have the book (I have an earlier book of his). But I'm almost positive that it does.

Go to this webpage [1]. Make sure you're on the chapter about "Artificial life games" (and puzzle games). Now, click on the "Online Study Guide". If you look through the study guide on that chapter, it includes questions about God games. Meaning that God games are considered a subgenre of Life simulation game. (MAYBE.)

(As a side note, there are still a lot of other elements in the game... in the cellular pac-man phase, or the tribe vs tribe wargame phase...) Randomran (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's first, and foremost, a god game. All the other elements are noted in gameplay. And by the way, if god game is a subset of life sim, which it isn't (see Populous, for example), then you'd ONLY include god game. Can you imagine someone putting in Warcraft III "real-time strategy/strategy"? It would be absurd (laugh). JAF1970 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And again JAF you are going out of subject and repeating yourself. I don't see anything that wouldn't put god game under life sim. But Randomran could you post a bit more better citations like straight words from articles or just links to the page itself where all you want to show us is in. And those other elements could possibly yet again be explained with life sim or simulation game. Skele (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, Spore belongs to at least two different genres (i.e. God game, life simulation). I don't see why the latter shouldn't be included in the articles infobox. Sillygostly (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point. But how many genres does it count as? Sandbox, God Game, Life Sim, Real-Time Strategy, Action... I don't intend for this to be an argument against putting those in there, I think Spore is a very interesting cross-genre game, and adding those to the info-box would be worth doing. KiTA (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Well we can name it life sim/god game where many people would be happy or just simulation game where it would cover all the genres it is. Both are fine by me. Skele (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "sandbox" can be considered a separate genre in and of itself as "free-roam" gameplay is fundamental element of most "God" and life simulation games (since games of these genres rarely contain any set objectives, allowing players to play at their own pace). While Spore could be comprised of a wide composite of genres (and sub-genres), only the most prevalent genre(s) should be mentioned (in this case, Life simulation/God game). Thoughts? Sillygostly (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. God game MIGHT actually be a subgenre of life simulation game. If someone could grab the Rollings book, we could verify that. And then we wouldn't put "God game / life sim". We'd just put "god game". And if someone went to the god game article, they'd see that it's also a type of life sim. Randomran (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Except it personally offends Skele to have god game there. (check the archives) (laugh) JAF1970 Anyway, it's irrelevent, because the entire universe refers to it as a god game and only a god game, and once again: the tail can't wag the dog. Wikipedia is supposed to report the definition, not make it. (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what the entire planet thinks, let alone the universe? From where I'm sitting, the current concensus is in favour of mentioning both genres (God/life simulation). It says "genre(s)" in the infobox for a reason. It would be ridiculous to claim that a game of this capacity only falls within the one genre. Sillygostly (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore Could Be the Greatest God Game Ever, Inquirer, Hands-On with Will Wright's "Spore", BusinessWeek, Game Master, The New Yorker, GameSpot's "god game" metatag, St. Louis Today ...The "God game is one of the few in its genre to arrive on Mac, ... about Will Wright's upcoming god game, Spore. What's it like to play God?, Bryan Appleyard Of Times Online (UK) Tries Out Spore JAF1970 (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really was trying to help. But I'm not impressed with how belligerent you are to pretty much everyone else here. I'm also unimpressed with how eager you are to embrace information that confirms your opinion, and your zeal for ignorance of anything else. Allow me to offer you some opposing research:

• [2] - "Electronic Arts' Spore, however, is Wright's deepest life simulation to date"
• [3] - "bad news for gamers hotly anticipating Will Wright's life simulation Spore"
• [4] - Spore, the life simulation PC game being designed by Will Wright, is looking absolutely spectacular.
• [5] - "Spore is an ingenious and ambitious life simulation for the PC"
• [6] - "Spore is an ingenious life simulation for the PC that lets gamers custom-build a creature"
• [7] - "Spore, to be published by Electronic Arts this fall, is poised to be his deepest life simulation to date."
• ... and there's more where that came from.

Here are some facts.

• (1) Spore is a multi-genre game, with gameplay as diverse as action and real time strategy.
• (2) There are lots of articles out there calling it a God game, which you found. Good job.
• (3) There are lots of articles out there calling it a life sim, which I found.

So... how should we respond? We have two options, as far as I can tell:

• (A) Display both "God game" and "Life simulation game", reflecting all the research out there;
• or (B) Look at the Rollings book, which MIGHT say that God games ARE a subgenre of Life simulation game. That would make it redundant to display both (like displaying FPS and Action, or RTS and Strategy). We'd just put "God game".

Either way, you need to do far less talking and far more listening. Review WP:CIVILITY, please. Randomran (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If we had to choose one or the other, I think life simulation would be more accurate (as the game is simulating user-created life forms), whereas God games usually refer to simulation games where life simulation isn't a core element of the game (such as SimCity, SimEarth). With that said, I'm still in favour of listing both genres as various aspects of gameplay (such as creature creation) fall within the God game genre whereas other aspects of the game would fall under the life simulation genre. Sillygostly (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But if the book says god game is a sub-genre for life sim and that god game wouldn't explain Spore enough widely then shouldn't we put life sim? But that's only "IF the book says". Skele (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Assuming the book does say a God game is a subgenre of life simulation, it really depends on how it defines it. If God games are just Life simulations + a few things, then it's not necessary to list both -- God game, by definition, includes all the features of a life simulation. But if God games are life simulations MINUS a few things, it's a whole different story... Either way we're gonna have to list both, until someone can pull out that book and show that labelling something a God game AND Life simulation would be redundant (and I'm only 75% sure that the book will help). Randomran (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse we have to check how official the book really is. If the book is official then we can trust every word it says. Skele (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, Will Wright himself said god game. And by the way, god game outnumbers "life simulation", and if god game is a subset of life sim, then god game prevails, as you use the exact genre (real-time strategy > strategy game, flight simulatioin > simulation, etc). Furthermore, gaming sites don't list Spore as a life sim - they list it as a god game (ie. Gamespot). And the articles I gave are some of the biggest articles of Spore's existance (New York Times, London Times, New Yorker, etc.) No matter how you slice it - Spore is very much a god game, and only it belongs in the infobox. Life simulation only occurs in the first two phases, and you have yet to prove how the last three phases are life sims. You attempted to earlier, but shot yourself in the foot by using descriptions that point to it as a life sim. You never stop being a nearly omnipotent being, but you do start doing real-time strategy, Civilization 4X, and grand strategy gaming. Let me know how negotiating treaties with other species falls under the header "life sim" and not "strategy game", or using a tech tree to get advanced units. Are you telling me Civilization is a life simulation?! (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do you even understand how wikipedia works? It's not majority rules, or "trap the guy in the argument" (which, by the way, you won't win an argument by putting words in peoples' mouths). If there are sources that say one thing and sources that say another, you put both. Like I said, maybe God game is a subset of Life simulation, but apparently you have no interest in verifying it. So the answer is that you put both, like we do for all hybrid games with multiple phases. For example, see ActRaiser or Portal. Randomran (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Do you understand what Wikipedia is? It does not create definitions (no original research). You do not wag the dog. Wikipedia does not declare categories - it reflects the definitions made by the professionals. If Wright, EA, NYT, NY, London Times, Gamespot, etc call it a god game, it's a god game. Do you see Wikipedia introducing the concept of, say, dwarf planets? Or The Theory of Everything? No. Anyway, you have failed to respond to my initial challenge: what part of the last 3 phases is a life simulation? It's more an RTS than a life sim, 3 phases to 2. Furthermore, if a god game is a subset of life sim (which it isn't), then you use god game because to say "god game/life simulation" would be like calling Civilization "turn-based strategy/strategy". Furthermore, you must include real-time strategy, since it features just as much RTS. Then you'd have "god game/life simulation/real-time strategy". Etc. I'm not twisting words here - saying that I am is a poor debate tactic. JAF1970 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's an example of selective definition:

• SimEarth ... for the space phase, with elements of sandbox gameplay: Life simulation game, of which God game might be a subgenre. Again, that's tricky.

Beep! Beep! Hold up. Did you notice the MASTER OF ORION description? What kind of game is Master of Orion? JAF1970 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not create definitions (no original research).

That's a rather hypocritical statement. You've previously dictated what was your definition of what constitutes a spin-off despite evidence (and arguments) to the contrary. Besides, what's wrong with stating that Spore falls under 2 (or more) genres? Sillygostly (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(cough) Will Wright made that statement in 2007 at TED. Don't be rude or unhelpful. JAF1970 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. This isn't debate club. We have a bunch of sources c:Palling it a God game, and a bunch of sources calling it a Life simulation game. So we should include both. That's not original research. Saying that we should reject one set of sources because of your interpretation would be original research, and a violation of NPOV on top of that. We include both sets of sources for both genres. And if there are other sources that also say it's a real time strategy game, then we'd throw in that too. If you want to know why so many sources conflict on the genre, it's because the game itself has pretty varied gameplay. But it's not up to us to say which sources are right and wrong. (Not unless there's some other source that manages to synthesize and explain that. Exactly what the Rollings book might do. But hey, you're a one man crusade. Good luck with that.) So is it settled: God game/Life sim? Or are there sources that say it's an RTS too? Randomran (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of god game/life sim. I don't think Spore could be classified as a strategy game as the game doesn't contain any set objectives. Sillygostly (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I put "(see below)" in the infobox in place of "god game[1][2][3][4][5]" in the genre field, so we can see what that would look like. I'd also be happy with "god game/life sim," though I think presentationally this one would be better. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is... 1. It's not a life sim any more than an RTS. 2. The articles that Skele posted were calling it a life simulation the way someone would call MLB 2K8 a "baseball simulation". 3. GameSpot and other sites specifically put Spore as a god game as a computer genre stategory. The articles I've listed are quite explicit, calling iit a god game in the title, usually, and like I said, they're major articles. 4. You can't change anything while it's under moderation. (See above.) JAF1970 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor with "god game/life sim" and "see below" proporitions. But for the last time, gaming sites DO NOT call it a god game. Gamerankings calls it a "Strategy, Breeding/Constructing", The Game Reviews calls it a "Sim", IGN calls it a "Simulation" AND Gamespot calls it a simulation game. Skele (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You're once again confusing "computer game genre" with "casual definition":

“ Genre: Strategy

Release Date: Sep 7, 2008 (Game Details)

”

As for categories: GameSpot's god game category

Oops. Want to try again?

Skele, stop using the *general definition* of simulation as a computer game genre. Under your definition, anything and everything is a simulation. Casual descriptions do not count as game genres. You can't call a baseball game a "baseball simulation" in the infobox, either. You can't call Wii Sports a sim, for instance, any more than you can call iit a strategy game (even though BAFTA did). Shall Wikipedia call Wii Sports a simulation and a strategy game? Tihere's a MASSIVE difference between using the term "simulation" - which is applicable to every single game on a computer (keep in mind, everything played on a computer is a simulation - a computer simulation) and a game genre. Spore Creatures is 100% a life simulation (and RPG). Please compare Spore with Spore Creatures. Get back to me. Spore is a god game every single second of gameplay, but a life sim, strategy game in 2 and 3 phases respectively. You're talking to someone who has been involved in the computer game industry one way or another for 27 years (yes, I started programming when I was 10). I've had several times of personal conversation with Will Wright. I could get direct quotes from him, except Wikipedia is no original research. JAF1970 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. So: God game/Life sim/Strategy? We now have a source for the third genre, which you kindly found. 2. That's original research. You don't get to decide which sources trump which, and which statements are to be disregarded. 3. Research out there says that this is three different genres. 4. Technically, we can edit it as much as we want. It's not locked, and mediation is non-binding. And you'd be entitled to revert it, but no more than three times. Technically, there's been a consensus that's moved on without you. Randomran (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're falling into that trap. It's a god game/life sim/4X/economic simulation/grand strategy game, etc. You seem to ignore what I said. It's a life sim in 2 of the phases, a strategy game in 3, but it never leaves the god game genre. You can't include ever single genre that Spore touches on - it's already done in the GAMEPLAY SECTION.

Add here's the frustrating part - stop acting like the article IGNORES the other genres it employs. It doesn't. What you want to do is clutter the infobox with every single genre - that's called verbosity, and would remove the article further from "Good Article" status. JAF1970 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In what trap? And what do you mean casual description? Have you ever gone to the gaming sites and read what they say? AGAIN, Gamespot says "Spore is a simulation game created by Will Wright that allows players to control various life forms from the cellular to the galactic level.". That doesn't seem a casual description to me nor any of the other gaming sites descriptions. And we are not trying to clutter the infobox with every single genre. We have only suggested two or three genres and ofcourse the "see below" which many people supported and which you deleted because of your own opinion not anyone elses. Skele (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, please thread your posts. When you are replying to someone but you don't indent appropriately, it can become very confusing, and it makes it difficult for myself (and probably others) to figure out how to thread ours properly as well. All in all, this causes a breakdown of communication, not very helpful when we're trying to collaborate. In fact I had to put this post at the bottom because I couldn't put it where I was going to without risking causing more confusion.

And yes, I can change things while the article is under moderation; where did you get the idea that that's not appropriate? I find myself unable to continue to assume good faith on your part any longer, so I went against the typical policy and undid your reversion of my last edit. I suggest that you take a couple of days to read up on some of Wikipedia's policies, like WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, WP:TE, and particuarly, WP:EQ. Also please understand that your background in the VG industry, while it may help you to be able to make better contributions, will not help you convince others of your views, will not make your views more correct than those of others, and do not give you a position of authority on this article. We're all equals here. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well to be prefectly honest I think we should do what Black & White 2 does. This game also has multiple genres and specifically, god game genre. However it also lists RTS seperatly. This imo is best. B&W2 has more than just life simulation elements, which god genre has been thrown around being a sub-genre of & RTS elements in it. IMO everything stated in the past paragraphs has shown god-genre is not a sub-sub-genre of simulation class, but it's own sub-genre just as Life Simulation is. Why? Because you can't really classify a god genre into a life simulation when it often has links beyond that. It does get tricky when war elements are added, but imo I say here we take a page from the afore mentioned game, which has much more of a waring element than this game does.Jinnai (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

omg it can be called a strategy game in general. what you call it doesn't matter nor do many people care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.26.210 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Grobb?

The citation for the Grobb comment is missing, this is the first I've heard of there being a specific, non procedurally generated villain in the game... Could this just be a specific press member's playthrough talking about the villain they happened to run into?

http://www.gametap.com/home/read/article/3843 <-- did just notice this by googling Grobb Spore, though... And this would explain the whole "cybernetic buzzsaw tail" that we saw at E3 a few years back... KiTA (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Grobb are real - and make sense as well. They're the final Darwinistic challenge the player has to face. As Wright said, there's always someone higher up on the food chain - the Grobb are the last obstacle. PS - fixed the citation.JAF1970 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(See below)

I couldn't find a section in the article as it is now that succinctly describes the various aspects of the game's genre, so I linked it to the "Genre" section, which doesn't exist in the article yet. I think we should work together to create this section. Instead of arguing about what genre Spore is and is not, let's work together to represent all the genres Spore is described as encompassing by reliable sources. We could start the section off with something like this:

Spore has influences from so many other genre-defining games that it doesn't fall neatly into any single genre. While the game's creators describe it as a "god game,"[ref] it also has elements of life simulation, RTS, and even sandbox gameplay.

We can then expand with more examples and comparisons, provide references if needed, and pull some text from other sections of the article, such as "massively single-player." When the game is released and reviewed more thouroughly, this section may wind up getting expanded further (for example if the game is called "genre-breaking" or some such after release), or become unnecessary. I do think the game will prove to be something of a revolution in gaming, and critics will have lots to say about it this fall. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... a separate section for the genre alone seems a bit excessive IMO (although we should probably wait for others to have their say). While Spore would indeed fall under a myriad of genres, like many games, I believe only the most prevalent genres need be mentioned. Of course if the section is brief and succinct, I don't see the harm. :) Sillygostly (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would call it a god game because it's not a simluation by any magazine definition. For example, Simulation of the Year winners include Falcon 4.0, Jane's F-15, etc. Calling Spore a sim is like calling Wii Sports a sim, which BAFTA did. It is also not a life simulation. Spore Creatures is a life simulation. God games always fall into the strategy category, anyway. 2 phases of Spore can remotely be called a life simulation - the other 3 are strategy games. Publications puit Spore into the strategy genre. Furthermore, when Spore is nominated for awards by PC Gamer, Gamespot, IGN, etc - they are not going to nominate it for "Best Simulation". They're going to put it in the Strategy Genre. (The Sims won CGW's Best Strategy Game, for instance.) It's less sim and more strategy, and those are just elements to the game. As a published magazine journalist, in my expert opinion, there's more strategy game than life sim in the game. If you put God game / life simulation, you must put "god game / life simulation / real-time strategy" or "god game / life simulation / strategy". You see the problem? JAF1970 (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think the (see below) idea is the best resolution to this. JAF1970 (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wii Version

{{editprotected}} spore.com now states that the Wii version will not be released on the same day as the PC and Mac versions. http://www.spore.com/faq.php#versions This should be reflected in the article. BTW, that's one example of EA calling them "versions." :-p Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Pssst. Spinoff is a subset of "version". All spinoffs are a version of a game, but not all versions are spinoffs. Capiche?) JAF1970 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You've just changed your position from before where you said that "version" was inaccurate, which would indicate, based on your support of "spinoff" as preferable, that "spinoff" could not be a subset of "version." Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate. Would you call, say, a border collie a quadraped? Technically correct, but confusing. By that logic, elephants and dogs are the same type of animal. JAF1970 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also need to include Wii under platforms, as it is not yet listed.Zhinz (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same game. It's not a port of Spore, it's something completely different. It's a spinoff, by anyone's definition. And Dansiman, no one ever said it was coming out the same day. JAF1970 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know how different it is? All we really know is that "We're not porting it over. You know, we're still so early in design and prototyping that I don't know where we're going to end up, so I don't want to lead you down one path. But suffice to say that it's being developed with the Wii controls and technology in mind." If even Buechner doesn't know where they're going to end up, how can you claim that it's "completely different?"

Now you're right that the article doesn't state they'll be released the same day, but Joe Reader who comes along might be misled into believing that they will, based on the section's opening paragraph "Two spinoffs[37][38] of Spore are also being released for handheld consoles, which are to be released on the same day as the main version," and the fact that there's currently no mention of a different release date for Wii. So it needs to be added. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore (Wii) still won't be the same game (for one, can't handle the data storage. for another, friend codes, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the data storage demands for the game were specifically designed to be minimal — that's the whole point of the procedural generation. And how can you possibly know how friend codes will or will not come into play? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Data storage isn't "minimal" - just the opposite. The main thing is how much the game is able to store There will be a ton of HD space taken up (animals, plants, buildings, vehicles, etc, all for a single planet) - but thanks to proc gen, they'll be able to store tons and tons of info. The other problem is the graphical load - you'd severely have to degrade the graphics to make it work. Plus, there's the whole server sharing. Nintendo no like online sharing - too many child predators out there. That's basically why MySims failed, from what I understand. Once more: the proc gen makes the game efficient and "small" -- when you're comparing it to other content-driven PC games. JAF1970 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that the Wii version will be identical to that of the PC/Mac versions of the game. The platform section in the infobox isn't reserved exclusively for "ports" as very few games nowadays are directly ported over. Take The Simpsons Game for instance, the Wii/PS2/PS3/360/PSP versions of the game were ports of one another in some way, however the DS version, while not a port, was basically a 2D rethinking of the aforementioned games. It retained certain elements/environments/situations/dialogue of the console games (albeit in a 2D environment). Strictly speaking though, it is far from a port, but it rather a different "version" of the console games, which attempts to recreate the experience of the console games, but within a 2D environment (given the DS' restrictions), and that is essentially what most game companies aim to do when they transfer their games to another platform. Besides, separating each and every non-ported version of Spore into its own article just shrieks of fanboyism, and is not constructive to the article's purposes. Any Wii/DS/Mobile-specific info could easily be integrated into the body of the main Spore article. If EA go ahead and decide to commission an annual Spore game on consoles (like they have with The Sims/EA Sports franchises), then fair enough, I suppose the console sequels could be considered "spin-offs" of sorts, but to label different versions of one game as a spin-off is false and misleading. Sillygostly (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest factor in graphical load is screen resolution, and since the Wii only runs at a max 480p, it is able to perform nearly as well as the PS3 and 360 do at full 1080. Heck, even my 3-year-old laptop (which was mid-tier even then) can run Oblivion (one of the most graphically-demanding games out today) just fine with all graphics options set to maximum except for animated grass if I just set the resolution to 640x480, and I know the Wii has better hardware than my laptop. As to online sharing, take a look at Nintendo's Check Mii Out Channel and SSBB — both allow exchange of content with total strangers without using friend codes. So you can't rule out the possibility that Wii Spore will too. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Graphic resolution has nothing to do with it. A low res game with identical gameplay is still the same game. The Wii version is being built from the ground up. A good example is that the Wii can't handle the storage for The Sims 2, so they created a special MySims version for it. It's going to be a completely different game - and I'd love to see how you would do the shared server with the Wii. They've already been saying that the blueprint for the Wii version is different, far different, than the personal computer version. They're not porting it over. They probably will for the as-of-yet-unannounced 360/PS3 version. (Check Development of Spore.) JAF1970 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment about "graphical resolution" was simply in response to your comment about "graphical load"; I wasn't saying that resolution had anything to do with how similar or dissimilar the games will be. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, procedural generation doesn't mean that the creatures themselves won't cost a few MB per. It's just the "acorn" that's small. JAF1970 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall a quote from Wright saying that each creature would only use a few KB. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is actually saying that to download new content for the game, each building/creature/vehicle etc is only 6ish kb. This is because everything is done on the computer during gameplay (procedural generation) so the load on the computer will be far greater than 6kb and more like what JAF is going for with a few MB. Download is small, computer cost is high (relatively)! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I guess, then, it's not an issue of data storage as it is RAM requirements. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Spore fan kit

Fankit, official. Am unsure if it belongs in Official links... JAF1970 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a new newsletter from EA. I believe we should put it in External Links. Pseudoserpent (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean if it's notable enough. JAF1970 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about as notable as the demo release since it has 404mb of Renderd creatures and vehicles (and some other stuff as well)  ;-) Pseudoserpent (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Underwater Phase cut, No Flying/Climbing/Swimming creatures

Official Spore FAQ listing this question:

Q: Can I make creatures that live underwater or in trees?

A: In Spore’s Cell phase your tiny creature will grow in its underwater world. The remainder of the game takes place on land, where you can grow your humble little beast into a world dominating species.

KiTA (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, that doesn't say you don't have an underwater creature. You can remain in the water as long as you like til you decide (even without legs) to emerge on land. JAF1970 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

With the water phase, people talk of the CUT phase beetween Cellular and Creature....so with underwater creature, people believe that it means the 3d, not the2d cellular phase.... ;-) Pseudoserpent (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it says everything will be on land, and videos have shown creatures coming straight from the tidepool stage to being, well, a big slug-like thing on the beach. But, then again, that could just be time-lapsing for the demos... KiTA (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no underwater PHASE, per se. But you can still have underwater cities... (ponder). JAF1970 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I missed that... JAF1970, could you please show me the article about that? Not becasue I don't belive you, but because I haven't read it. Thank you in advance :) Pseudoserpent (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Various videos. And I don't think the Underwater phase has been "cut" - but merged with Tide pool + Creature. Sort of how City phase was merged into the Civ phase. JAF1970 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes there is an underwater phase but on the option page where the player can select what phase does the player want to play on there is no separate underwater phase, just the creature phase. Skele (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, more like tide pool + creature. JAF1970 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

just backing up your claim. Skele (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Read it again... It specifically says "Can I make creatures that live underwater" and then, in a roundabout way, "No." The only underwater phase now is the tidepool stage, I presume they extended it to encompass bigger creatures. KiTA (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps the question is whether a player could advance into the tribal/civ phases without leaving the water, and I believe the answer to that is "no." From what I recall of underwater cities, they exist in a bubble/dome environment, the same being true for placing colonies on planets without atmosphere, in other words the city acts like it would on land (roads at the bottom, generally horizontal layout, etc.; no "floating" buildings) although it is located underwater. I am speculating somewhat here but can anyone confirm or deny this? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they pretty much say right there that there's no underwater anything, anymore -- it's all land, now. KiTA (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Wright said something about underwater cities at E3 2005 when he was talking about the last phase, but I ain't sure. Skele (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's 3 years back, I'm pretty sure that's one of the things that got cut... But again, I donno. KiTA (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the bubble city arcologies still have underwater varieties, too. JAF1970 (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean the bubble city arcologies that we haven't seen in several years? KiTA (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well good to know. Is it written in the article? Should we add it to the article if it's not? Skele (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an unsourced unreferenced IP address edit that changed "it is unknown if there will be swimming creatures" to "it is confirmed there are swimming creatures" as the Spore FAQ directly contradicts this. If there's some form of recent (2008) video or interview showing swimming creatures, I'd love to see it, but as of right now, the Spore FAQs says Land or Bust. KiTA (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw underwater creatures in one of the trailers on Youtube. I think that they will have underwater creatures and cities. Though they might not have it as it's own phase but as an addition to the creature and civ phases. Nothing set in stone though so we will have to agree on something provable until the game comes out.Doomrider15 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The only time underwater creatures have been shown in video is the GDC 2005 video - the game's changed a great deal since then. JAF1970 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Licensing

Moved all the Spore-related stuff to a new section. JAF1970 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now, doesn't seem to be so pushy anymore about the term "spinoff." I'm going to make one more change, it will still leave the term "spinoff" in use, and will also use "version," check it out and see if you think it's an okay compromise. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 09:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was basically doing cleanup. The other Spore-related games aren't a part of "Spore" in the strictest sense. JAF1970 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Price

Any word on what the price will be?

No, and please sign your post with four ~. Pseudoserpent (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

$50 199.185.84.194 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a wild guess, but probably pretty close to what it will end up being. Still speculation at this point, however. KiTA (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already bought it and it's about 50€. Ofcourse that's not USD. Skele (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The price will be whatever the resellers sell it for. Amazon shows that the RRP is £34.99, so this is the likely RRP! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The price wont be put on the article, so why exactly was this posted here? This is a talk page for discussing the article: not general discussion about the article subject. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He wanted to know. But your right, the price won't be put in the article and this is a discussion page for the article. So let's just stop it here. Skele (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Price is only an issue if a Spore Special Edition is released. JAF1970 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuri's Night Bay convention 2008 Video?

Someone just added a mention (but not a reference) to a video of Spore at Yuri's Night Bay convention 2008 showing hovering creatures... anyone have this? KiTA (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Found some videos here: http://www.xspore.com/community/sporedom/6076-spore-yuris-night-video.html KiTA (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clothes

So, the Spore website now has 2 new(?) screenshots of a single type of critter -- one of the critter, the other of a "tribal" version of the critter in clothes.

http://www.spore.com/screenshots.php KiTA (talk) 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I was posting this to ask a question -- is this something that belongs mentioned in the tribal phase? KiTA (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's mentioned and it belongs, since clothing is yet more stuff you can edit. JAF1970 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

So... With the repeated vandalism over the past 24 hours or so, should we request semi-protection to keep the IP address editors out? KiTA (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait til it gets obnoxious. It's pretty well patrolled on this page. JAF1970 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also only once or twice a day, not enough to by and large warrant protection. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spice as a Dune Reference

The currency for the later stages is spice, which seems awfully similar to the Geriatric Spice that was the major source of wealth in the Dune novels. Similarly, the spice was introduced right before the space age in Dune. I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, similar to the Brobb being Borg said backwards thing. 71.120.35.128 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The difference is that the devs explicitly stated it was a Borg reference. The Dune reference is too much of a stretch, and unverified. Could just as easily be a Marco Polo reference. JAF1970 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brogg or Brobb or whatnot is definately a Borg ref, and Spice... Remember that Spice was a very important trade good on Earth until very recently. The fact that it's still important in the space age (I would think "energy" would be more important) is probably a Dune reference, though. I also have to speculate that there will probably be other resources you need to collect during the space age -- I think the game only having you need 1 resource by then is unlikely. Maybe a "biological information" category, prompting having people explore and scan various worlds... KiTA (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While Spice may be a Dune reference, until we have a reliable source saying as much, we can't put it into the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Even with a source, I don't think it's necessary to add it. Popular culture references aren't necessary for video game articles all the time, plus they usually just get flooded with any random reference (many of which is unsourced speculation). RobJ1981 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not finalized. Maxis may decide to go back to simoleons anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

fansite art

Also, did anyone notice that the official website has been updated with various Spore fanart-turned-ingame creatures? Something to look at, although I doubt it's worth mentioning in the article -- perhaps "development of spore" could use it as a way of showing off the capabilities of the editor. It looks like you can texture individual parts differently, which is new. KiTA (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did some captures for Development of Spore, but no. Fan art does not belong. JAF1970 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking a side-by side comparison thing, not just the fan art. KiTA (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

number of planets/stars?

At one point this article says there is 500,000 stars, later it says 4 billion planets, i dunno 2,000 planets to a star sounds a bit much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.188.175 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the 500,000 stars is correct. It's on the Spore site, and on some of the Youtube videos with Will Wright on it. The planets is definitely incorrect.Doomrider15 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM. JAF1970 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a forum post to me. The article should be accurate, and they are discussing what the number of planets and stars are in the game (which is LISTED in the article). That's not a forum post at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a forum question about Spore, not about the article. Something about the article would be, "Shouldn't there be a mention of the scope of Spore?" JAF1970 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question, so I wouldn't say it was a forum post. Hmmm... could it be 4 million planets? Skele (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Forum post or not (which I still don't think it was), that doesn't give you the right to caps lock bold your comment. JAF, you were warned about that type of behavior on your talk page before. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there doesn't seem to be a citation for the number of planets and stars. Am I right or didn't I just find it? Skele (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many images?!

There's only 12 of them. Let me know which images are "unnecessary". JAF1970 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy is designed to protect wikipedia from copyright infringement lawsuits. Familiarize yourself with the wikipedia image "fair use" policy. 12 is a lot. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First, here's JAF's edit summary of his removal of the tag (when I re-added it): Your reasoning is unsound. You're stating that, 1) The pics are superfluous (they're not), 2) Spore is an unimportant VG article (it is). Go to Talk page.) I personally feel you need to calm down a little, and stop assuming everyone is out to wreck the article and the talk page (for people that don't know: see the above section, where JAF yelled at people unreasonably). Also, don't assume the reasoning behind my edit. I never stated Spore wasn't important. However, when a tag gets placed on an article: it should be discussed FIRST, then removed. Not the other way around. Being a regular editor of the article, doesn't automatically decide that you make the sole decision about tags. Next time, leave the tag alone, and post here first (then wait for replies). The Spore article has a lot of content, but I don't think that instantly justifies so many images. Also, if you take a look at featured articles: I highly doubt the extra long ones always have numerous images. I'm not saying all articles should have the same number of images, however I do feel the Spore article could cut back on a few. I'm not sure which ones though, I'm not an expert on the game. Massive article/massive game itself doesn't mean it needs image overload to describe many things. There is more to the internet than Wikipedia. Perhaps you should ask the editor that added the tag originally, why they placed it. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The primary problem is that spore has many different radically different phases of gameplay and the pictures are meant to reflect that. I do feel a bit too many were used. There should be one image per phase plus the two used for the editor section. These images should clearly show the main part of the phase. Creature has 3 pics and could be cut to one. Tidal pool, tribal and civ are perfect. Space I feel has a poorly selected pic its not a main function to use CO2 or monolith. Space should a nice picture of UFO + planet and possibly a second pic the the large milky way.

It's a stated function according to Wright, if you saw any one of his many seminars - and that IS a UFO + planet pic. Also, the Tribal and Civ pics are gone. JAF1970 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The pre-release editor doesnt really need pics. The spore mobile phone one I guess fits okay. Other than that too many images werent really used. Spore is a huge game that makes a grand attempt on a larger scale than pretty much any video game ever created. You go from single cell organism to spare faring alien race.

Also, someone randomly adding a tag onto an article with no rationale behind doing so seems rather silly to be asking them before removing that tag. The original poster of the tag should have discussed first then added a tag not vise versa robj1981, otherwise I could run around adding every single tag to every article and force you to talk to me before removing them? Shesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.142.215 (talk • contribs)

As Randomran said, this has to do with fair use. Please read up on it (by following the links that are in the tag itself). It's a good thing to have images for important things in the game, however we shouldn't ignore fair use guidelines. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And if I get fair use? JAF1970 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Spore Mobile pic is unnecessary, since it's not Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the number of images has shrunk. Shall I get Maxis' approval on the pics, since it's THEIR copyright? JAF1970 (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you could do that, it would be spectacular. I know Ubisoft has been pretty generous with the licensing of their photos for journalistic / research purposes. I'm not sure who you would talk to, though. Otherwise, it's not really an issue of number. See the policy on Wikipedia:Non-free content. It's more of an issue of necessity. Fair use of copyrighted material depends on quality just as much as quantity. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article looks ugly and stark now. Useless towards being a useful article. And that's what Wiki is about: USEFULNESS. JAF1970 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, just stop. As stated before: it's a fair use issue. We can't just ignore policies. You seem to be the only one against changes to the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, you'd be wrong. A lot of people who aren't Wiki editors are kind of, well, outraged. They just don't do Wiki editing. Furthermore, some of them are involved with the game. Don't worry, I'm going to get the approval and make sure it's "legal". JAF1970 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. That's my opinion. If you like it, say so. How many of you like the changes? JAF1970 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the images that were removed are questionable. Removing the creature phase images? The tribal phase image? What purpose does that serve? If I were forced to remove a phase pic, it would be the Civ phase and the monolith pic. I just don't see the reasoning behind the edits. I'm in journalism - when an article is ugly, people don't favor it over another article on the same subject. JAF1970 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

this page violates the non-free content policy set down and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. I will shortly be removing some images to attempt to make the article compliant with the non-free image use policy. those user(s) who re-add non-free content may be blocked for knowingly violating policy. per the WP:NFCC#3 most of the images violate policy. β^_command 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that a few of those images did need to be gone. HOWEVER. The picture of the Creature Creator box and the picture of the editor DO belong in the article, and I'm prepared to readd them -- after we discuss this further, of course, as the last thing this article needs is another edit war. KiTA (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the creature editor image be reinstated as this is a major function of the game. If needed, reducing resolution to fall more in line with fair use. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a regular thumbnail image. JAF1970 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just IMed a member of the Spore team, and he said, and I quote, "Those changes are idiotic." Keep in mind, these are not my words - it's the Spore team member who said it. Getting approval via email now. JAF1970 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

However, we do have the fact that WP's mission is to be a free (as in both cost and thought) encyclopedia, and per the Foundation we are to limit our use of non-free media. However, if, as Ubisoft did, EA/Maxis allows screenshots of their games or Spore specifically for unlimited use on WP, then the images can easily be restored. --MASEM 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's my intention, Masem. ;) (Which is why those pics are sitting on my talk page for now) JAF1970 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

getting images released, will not happen. Due to copyright complexity its not possible to release those images freely. Because wikipedia only permission is not enough, wikipedia only images are still non-free. the current usage of non-free content is almost purely cosmetic and is why they where removed. those images fail part three of the non-free media policy. Honestly it doesnt matter what the owners of the game say, they have zero control over the content of the article. β^_command 01:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I point to Ubisoft's free content OTRS request, which EA/Maxis has to make a similar one to OTRS, to get these as free, and thus remove the NFC restriction. Yes, until they do put in the OTRS request, they violate NFCC, and thus must be deleted/kept off the page. --MASEM 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

that refers to commons:Template:Attribution-Ubisoft and otrs:20051200210003144 the ticket in questions does not release the images but rather is a request for information. β^_command 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several discussions concerning exactly what the Ubisoft OTRS actually means(here and here), im confused as to what you mean by saying they are a request for imformation?John.n-IRL 02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the OTRS ticket quoted on the template does not give permission to use the images, the e-mail referred to by otrs:20051200210003144 ticket is in fact a request for information and not a e-mail releasing images under a free license. β^_command 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this isnt a ubisoft page but what exactly does this, "Recently the computer and video game publisher and developer Ubisoft gave his permission to use user created screenshots of his games under a free license", mean? (Taken from here). John.n-IRL 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Have any of these images actually been nominated at WP:IFD? If they are in violation of NFCC (as Betacommand asserts), they should be brought to the attention of regular IfD contributors. I recently participated in a Peer review of the Heroes (TV series) article (see it here) where a frequent comment was "for this article to be a FA candidate it needs to have lots of images!!!" That article currently has 10 non-free images. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not the images themselves, but the number of non-free images, thus it would be inappropriate to bring any up to IFD. --MASEM 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on approval. Bad time for this (crunch time for Spore and the Creature Creator in particular.) JAF1970 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If your planning on writing this up at Gamestooge that would be no use, since you cant reference that site(last time i checked, anyway, its blocked). And would the act of acquiring a comment to back up an opinion(as far as I can tell) possibly violate some wiki policy? If not it seems questionable to me. John.n-IRL 06:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So JAF got the story on his blog? Great, still cant reference that here. Your site fails wp:rs, and is also banned as a link(wp:spam). John.n-IRL 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Creature phase

Just wondering - why were the creature images removed? It's the phase that's the core of the game and that is the focus of the game for most. JAF1970 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow

I come back and the Spore logo is gone, too? JAF1970 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's back. :p JAF1970 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't start again. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

DRM

Posted the DRM news. I know it's tempting, but don't post negative reaction til articles criticizing the DRM are published (which shouldn't be too long). JAF1970 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell people what to do. If people find a negative reaction from a reliable source whenever, they are free to post it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, isn't that what I just said? JAF1970 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include the fact that SecirRom has been heavily criticized in its other uses(BioShock, Mass Effect)? John.n-IRL 06:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly acceptable, as long as it's sourced. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So far, the critical articles are directed at Mass Effect PC from having it, not Spore. ie, Spong JAF1970 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing another game name is NOT a problem, so don't remove it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Validation every 10 days?

Sorry if this seems like a forum post, but the passage "authorize their copy online every ten days" seems kind of vague. How exactly does one "authorize" it? Does it require going to a website, does it do it automatically, do you do it directly through the game? I'm kind of confused. Obviously, I'm looking forward to the game so I really wanna know, and I'm sure the section could be re-written for better clarity. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the whole authorization process is done quietly in the background, automatically. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit made to make it more clear, that the software, not the user, has to do the check. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'v changed it since they have just announced a new system, still not 100% clear about what kind of authentication is required each time you use online stuff though. John.n-IRL 21:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at [8] for a bit more clarification to the situation... I'm too tired to write this into the article --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this [9], Spore and Mass Effect are no longer using this scheme due to fan outrage. 76.104.192.194 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Internet Required?

Sorry if this seems forumy, but I haven't seen any info on wikipedia on wiehter internet is REQUIRED to play. On thta matter, is there any official info AT ALL? The Dark Fiddler (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is not a forum. Spend you time reading this link.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Or we could spend 2 seconds answering him, and possibly look into adding it to the article. No, Internet is not required, although it directly enhances the gameplay, and apparently doesn't require much in the way of a connection. The game will ship with a wide variety of creatures, presumably the ones people will upload between the game's creature creator demo being released. Other creatures will be auto-uploaded by you IF you have Internet access. At the same time, you'll download new creatures whenever you connect to the server, and on demand when you need them -- again, if you have a connection. KiTA (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about the 10 day validation? I assume that requires internet connection. Or is there some other way for it to check if it's validated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skele (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The 10-day validation is no more. See previous section. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they removed it, instead it will validate itself when you connect to Sporeopedia, which is how just about every single player game with an online server does it, so, no big news there. KiTA (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Buecher also stated that you won't need a CD to play, either. Digg page 212.178.38.234 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Science of spore?

Whoever keeps adding the sporenormous links, it appears to be a spam link. If its not, please explain why so it can have an acurate despcripion. Thanks. John.n-IRL 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?!

Why...why where the creature phase pictures deleted? It's what the game focuses on most (except maybe space phase)! Pseudoserpent (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the pics on my hard drive. Once I get the permission from Maxis, I'll repost them. They're tremendously busy putting a sheen on the Spore Creature Editor right now. JAF1970 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Permission from maxis will not be enough, not unless they are going to release them under a free license which I doubt. I don't think permission for the image to be used just on Wikipedia will suffice as far as my knowledge of policy goes.John.n-IRL 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If Maxis says it's ok, then it's ok. JAF1970 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It also has to be according to wikipedia policies(adding to JAF's comment) Skele (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)