Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Official Spore forums now banning users from playing their legit copies if they discuss DRM

Source: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page

I really don't know what the Wikinerds deem notable anymore and haven't in years so I figured I'd put this here and let someone else run with it. dethtoll (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hah! "may be at risk of banning" is not the same thing as "now banning users". Dp76764 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but why is it even a possibility in the first place? dethtoll (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe cause it's a private company and you're using their property so they can enforce whatever rules they want? Poor customer service, to be sure, but it's their choice. Dp76764 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this is kinda screwed up "Please do not continue to post theses thread or you account may be at risk of banning which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore." So the first poster isnt that far off the mark...

72.227.230.250 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Screwed up? Possibly. Notable/appropriate for this article? Not at all. Dp76764 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that this is very notable. Banning a user from the forum for not following forum rules is one thing - as has been said, it is a private company and a private forum. Banning them from playing the game is quite another matter. Munta (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Forums aren't reliable sources so this isn't remotely appropriate for the article.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I first believed this to be an official announcement from Maxis/EA and despite being a froum, I believe that would have made it worthy of inclusion (as part of WP:SELF/QUEST). However, I have looked into the situation a little more. The initial threat of a ban was made by one of the forum moderators http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/5168.page. The moderators are fans and are in no way connected to EA or Maxis. The moderator has since had their moderator account removed for posting false information. Hopefully this is enough information to finally bury this one. Munta (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be admissable but I have a link to where someone documented the process that he had to go through to get more installations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.105.180 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's admissible depends less on what the source says than on what kind of source it is. If this is the guy's personal blog, then probably not. If this is a magazine (online or print) article, then it's probably okay. Why not show us the link? 24.187.189.117 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design vs Evolution

I've seen many arguments on both sides that Spore is either a perfect example of a "god-game demonstrating intelligent design" or a "solid but simplified portrayal of evolution".

In my opinion it shows elements of both Evolution and Intelligent Design, this dichotomy may be worth mentioning in the article, since some mentioning of the educational value of this game is present.

Here is an extensive Slate article on it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199922

I know that this is just an entertainment product but since evolution is mentioned this can be investigated. Personally I believe in Evolution, but from a scientific view, the game is quite unscientific and has many elements of intelligent design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.10.68 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Having had a quick look at the wikipedia page on intelligent design I would have to disagree that this game could be an example of it. Merely due to the fact that there isn't a supernatural being affecting the universe, merely the player and I certainly wouldnt class myself a supernatural being, proponants of intelligent design believe the designer to be the God of Christianity which I certainly am not either. However I can see where people would get the idea, as when you reach the space age you can populate other planets with creatures and help evolve them to space faring races. That being said, your race was merely a one celled organism that has evolved to a higly advanced civilisation and thus still neither supernatural nor the God of Christianty (or Spode for that matter, though I wish the followers would believe you were then maybe they wouldnt demand money from you). Please feel free to bash my ramblings and show me any errors I have made as I only had a quick glance at the Intelligent Design page. Or wait to see if more people agree that it should be included. Dark verdant (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like it goes along with the idea of guided evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.105.174 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, John Bohannon sent a copy of the game to ID advocates at Lehigh University, and they rejected it as too scientifically inaccurate.Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: Platforms

There are three different versions of the game for different platforms:

• SPORE for the PC/Mac
• SPORE: Origins for the Mobile Phone, iPod, and iPhone
• SPORE: Creatures for the Nintendo DS

--megamanfan3 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In that you are wrong. Spore: Origins and Spore: Creatures are spinoff's of Spore not versions of it. Only two versions of the game are around at the moment the PC and MAC versios. Spore: Origins can't be said to be the same game as Spore as it only has the cell stage that is also quite different than the original cell stage so in other words its just a spinoff. Same goes to the Spore: Creatures as it also has just one stage "creature" and it doesn't even work like the original creature stage in Spore but is more of an adventure game with a plot. Both of these games have their own pages as they aren't versions of this game but just games made under the same name. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

LOOOOOOONG

is it just me, or is this getting a little long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.144.77 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well its about 1/4 shorter than the GTA IV article so I would not say that its too long. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

what's wrong with it being long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.16.171 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article's length so long as it stays well-organized and doesn't get repetitive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Warranted criticism?

One criticism is a possible limitation on the creature editor. I can’t verify this, but all creatures have to be symmetrical. Meaning you can’t have one small claw and one large claw, or have one limb on one side and something else on the other side. Is this true? If so, this would be a limitation on the editor and so a warranted criticism.

No, it's not. Look closely at the Grox. Leushenko (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

any criticisms included in the article have to first be made by a reliable source stating that they think poorly of the product for reason X. Otherwise it violates WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV to include them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reapply For Good Article Status

Last time the article was reviewed for GA status, the game wasn't even out, the information was massively outdated, and there was a constant edit war over the notability of SecuROM being in the game and whatnot.

Several months down the line, the edit wars have ceased, the page has been subject to entire rewrites, and the quality has advanced considerably.

All spelling and grammar are correct, the prose is indeed clear, it does indeed obey by the manual of style, there is no original research, provides adequate sources for controversial information, is broad, neutral, stable, well-illustrated, and generally well-written.

There are many things that make it not liable to hit Featured Article status, but I think it clearly smacks the Good Article criteria, as I listed above. I'll give it 14 days for people to respond and agree or disagree, and if most in favor, I'm gonna go place it as a Good Article candidate. Dark dude (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree! I was thinking about doing the same myself, but hadn't got round to it yet! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 11:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was a separate class of "NPOV until all commercial interest dies down". No way is this a good article, it's NPOV as all heck. It reads like an ad. 62.106.48.222 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant POV, as Neutral POV seems like a good thing. :) Nitpicks aside...One big problem (I think) that's causing its "ad" appearance is the lead. WP:WIAGA requires a lead that complies with that guideline. (Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section can't hurt too much, either.) Spore's lead doesn't quite summarize the article, and instead gives very small mention of the stages, reception and versions of the game. I think it should give a little bit more stage detail, talk about its editors and scientific accuracy, and have at least one full sentence about the DRM stuff. The version info should probably be moved to Development or a separate Versions section or something, as well. I'll write my own version of the lead here when I have time and interest, but with the other articles I pay attention to more often, consider doing so yourselves before hell freezes overI get there first.--an odd name 08:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious that Spore is the most pirated game ever

According to the external link used, while Spore was pirated 1.7 million times in 2008 making it the chart topper, The Sims 2 has more than half that many downloads for 2008 alone, and it's four years old.129.42.208.173 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, unfortunately statistics concerning piracy rates are hardly accurate. And the Sims have all those expansions that would also skew numbers greatly. There's also the question of even older games (Starcraft comes to mind) that weren't even measured back then etc. Maybe it should say something more like "most d/ls in a short period of time". Ciobanica (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanic?

Under the DRM/SecuROM section, it says that DRMs are "satanic". Shouldn't that be removed? 216.215.242.92 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Full of corporate shills

The reception to the early copies? May have been good. Given most reviewers didn't really have time to play it.

The reception a month or two after release? Every gamer - and I mean every single one - has listed Spore as the biggest disappointment of 2008 and some say it competes with Daikatana for most overhyped game ever. 62.106.48.222 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

where does this come from? zachoop dec.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What about creature?

The creature stage is not in the stages area of the page. 86.154.37.192 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Spore Modding

Spore modding has taken off lately, with the ability to create new parts and many mods coming out for spore. Should this be included on the page as it is for oblivion/civ/fallout 3? Here are 2 links to spore modding sites:

Thanks

Ball Lightning

(BalLightning (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

I've removed the links as obvious promotion, please read WP:SPAM. Unless modding gains prominence through acknowledgment by EA, article coverage, etc. no.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki fail - "Scientific Accuracy" should be removed

Scientific accuracy? Does Diablo have a chemistry accuracy section because it deals with alchemy? Unless ANYONE can find articles stating that the creators were going for near 100% scientific accuracy, this section MUST BE REMOVED. It's just so stupid.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.152.84 (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm tired of all these so called scientific enthusiasts whining about how Spore isn't scientific enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the section "Scientific accuracy" should be deleted. The game never pretends or assumes to be realistic. Other games don't have this. Alot of the info in that paragraph is saying that spore isnt scientific or un-scientific. It's just a game.

-Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.97.102 (talk 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sim Life does not have a section on this, at most a couple sentences. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh... It said the npc creatures don't evolve, but that isn't true, I've seen one species make a cacoon and come out a new species! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.97.62 (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely this line taken directly from the article should help us to decide whether or not to keep the section "Michael Behe of Lehigh University reviewed the game and said that Spore "has nothing to do with real science or real evolution--neither Darwinian nor intelligent design." I agree with a removal of the section. Dark verdant (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical Errors?

I recently bought Spore, and it is FULL of crashes and glitches. Shouldn't there be some assistance posted on the article, like links to tech support or all that stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.49.242 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia isn't a technical support forum, game guide, or anything else like that. If people want support they can contact the publisher/developer.--Crossmr (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

there should be a support part because there are many glitches including on some computers (mine) it wont even download. zachoop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Grox

Hello. I'm love the game "Spore". Why not talk about "The Grox"? Thanks. --Osnoroma (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New Spore Games.

Check this article out. It looks like three new games have been announced. Shouldn't this be mentioned. http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/947/947549p1.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.71.104 (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they should go on separate pages. XatuGravelz (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

EA Games to Drop Spore

Due to the poor Amazon reviews, EA games has decided to drop Spore from its 2009 lineup.

http://eagames.com/v/mmpagerobtjons.php?videogames:Spore_(dropped)&article/2009/09lineup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.55.41 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The above link is broken, and through google searching and a few major tech-news sites I havent found the above to be true, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.195.186 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure what you guys are talking about. I did a quick search and the only EA line-up news that relates with Spore seen to be plan of four new Spore add-ons http://www.gamezone.com/news/01_22_09_01_05PM.htm Primadog (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and one more "more spin-offs are forthcoming for what Bradshaw calls the most successful new intellectual property launch in EA’s history. Spore has sold millions of units, but Bradshaw can’t put a finer point on it until EA reports its financial results. Spore may not have seen record sales, but it’s done well enough for EA to lay down some major bets on the franchise." http://venturebeat.com/2009/01/22/ea-doubles-down-on-the-spore-franchise-with-a-series-of-new-2009-spin-offs/ Primadog (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I think the reception section is a bit biased and puts spore in an extremely good light, when many people think it was a large disappointment. Infact Gamespot listed it as a nominee in the Most Disappointing Games of 2008 in the Reader's Choice Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.158.211 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

science/ID

i'd like to point out that it is somewhat odd to mention how both the scientific field of evolution, and the scientific field of intelligent design, reacted to this game. - it is quite a large part of the article actually. - and not that relevant towards the game. (----) 22. feb. 2009.

This has been mentioned before and I would have to agree with you. However no one has removed it. I wouldn't like to do this myself, but maybe we should get a consensus going to see whether it should actually be removed? Dark verdant (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Spore: Creator Keeper

Just been looking on up coming releases on Play.com and noticed Spore:Creator Keeper. Was wondering if any has heard/read anything about this add-on? Im at work so cant look at gaming websites, might have a look later. Supposed release date is 26th June which cant really be right (I assume) as thats when the Galactic add-on is out (on play.com anyway). Bit of an odd name, not sure what it would actually be. Dark verdant (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Will Wright as Designer

I think it may be misleading saying that Spore was designed by Will Wright. In actuality there were many designers on the game as you can see by the credits: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/spore_/credits

It didn't seem apropriate as I remembered reading this article: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12700 Wright says in the article: "I’m just one cog in this big team. I want to give people insight into how design gets distributed. I brought my main designers from the team, each looks at the game from a different way."

Maybe a better solution is to say "Will Wright was the Chief Designer of Spore", or "Spores concept was envisioned by Will Wright". I don't want to change it if anyone feels it wouldn't be beneficial.

I think it is OK how it is now. People won't think he was the only designer of the game and others were just coders... Peter.Hozak (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

More Details

I'm going to the reference afterward, can anyone else elaborate on the existence of Earth and the Solar System in the galaxy?

P.S. There really out to be a Sportal (Spore-+-portal), or at least one for games of similar nature, genre, etc. 67.246.11.71 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a Spore Wiki which I was once fairly active on. The Solar system and Earth do exist in the game, in a fixed position in every player's galaxy, and the planets are, other than their names and layouts, essentially the same as every other system in the game. Meaning everything can be colonised except for the gas planets. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is actually Sol system in the game. A lot of people found Earth - look at someone's achievements page [1]. Peter.Hozak (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

This section of the article appears to draw a conclusion regarding where the game falls in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. I propose that the first sentence be merged into the preceding Scientific accuracy section and the remaining text be deleted. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 09:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited that section - i hope second part is now just logical conclusion, not original research. Peter.Hozak (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-hostile epic creatures?

In Creature section, there is a new suggestion, that epic creatures are not always hostile and can be befriended. I cannot verify that, so added. If this won't be sourced, I suggest to revert the change. Peter.Hozak (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove intelligent design section

I think that we should remove the intelligent design section because it does little more than to restate what is in another section. 76.193.177.214 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan Reception

Theres currently a section on fan reception EG Metacritic score... now many game articles in the past have rejected fan reception, considering it unrealiable due to strong bias for and against... so why do we have one here? Stabby Joe (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Informal speech and/or reference needed

"While the Steam distribution platform imposes its own DRM scheme on all distributions, Steam's DRM is nowhere near as intrusive as SecuROM"

The latter part of this statement sounds very informal, and probably needs a citation. Could someone knowledgeable about this material please fix, or remove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.137.185 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Give Galactic Adventures its own page?

Seeing as every Sims expansion pack has its own page, why not give Galactic Adventures its own page as well? Already there is more then enough information on the game, including box art, release date, and features of the expansion pack. So, why not give it its own page? 64.126.177.30 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so, but there is a large page on Spore Galactic Adventures on Spore Wiki. 88.105.65.245 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But if the average person who might not know about wikis tries to look it up they might not be able to easily find any info, so it should get it own page, but probably only after its release. Kentourian (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Will Spore Hero have it's own page, since the spore version for nintendo DS version does?

And will the spore hero for wii and ds be seperated? Nuraska (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most games share one page no matter how many consoles it is featured on. I think we should leave Spore Hero in here until more information is available, then it should receive one page for all consoles. Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

can you create a new page now? i believe its a completely different game. possibly even slightly rpg-ish. http://www.spore.com/what/wii

20:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Galaxiums/galaxia

I've cut , and even galaxiums (networks of interconnected galaxy surfaces) beyond. since 1) there's no WP usage of 'galaxiums' in a Spore context; 2) nor is there any visible on a quick Google; 3) the plural should be 'galaxia' anyway :) and 4) there are no 'interconnected galaxy surfaces' in Spore - just the one galaxy with its radiating arms. I'm open to correction, as always. Kay Dekker (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

federation

you are not able to make a galactic federation in spore. if any one says that it is truth that you are able to make a galactic federation then tell how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It just says federation in the article not galactic federation. I would imagine this is when you become friendly with a race and they allow you to have one of their space ships to fly with you. Dark verdant (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

City Hall

"The player can place three types of buildings (House, Factory, and Entertainment) around the default City Hall building (which is ________) and up to 9 types of vehicles"

I've seen the text (highlighted here) in this sentence change (at the blank) at least ten times already. We need to reach some sort of consensus. I suggest we get rid of the parenthetical phrase all together, as it makes no sense to a non-Spore player. Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"cider emulation" information

I have removed the apparent disclaimers next to indications of Macintosh support about how it's not really native, but is instead emulated using Cider. Cider is not emulation technology. It is a version of the Windows libraries ported to Mac OS X, but the game itself runs completely natively and uses the Cider libraries like any game would use whatever libraries it was made to use.

Perhaps this information would be relevant to include in the article in a section about the technical details of how the game was made, but where it was it seemed like it was trying to make a point that the game isn't really a true and pure Mac game. samrolken (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: According to own Transgaming's own web page on Cider: "Cider acts as a "wrapper" around the PC game dynamically translating PC API calls to the Mac OS X operating system". That's the definition of emulation. Cider games are *not* native Mac games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.57.73 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)