Topic: spore mistakes

[vulcan101]

i like the idea of throwing creatures into orbit around your planet i wonder what other fun mistakes will and his team have made

[Daxx]

i like the idea of throwing creatures into orbit around your planet i wonder what other fun mistakes will and his team have made

You realise that's not a "mistake", that's a feature of their physics system.

[vulcan101]

they didnt programm it into there it was like an accidental programming watch the e3 demo he says its a mistake/accident the didnt mean to

[Lualmoba]

I don't think there is much to talk about until the game is released because the only mistake that we could know about are those that Will himself has pointed out.

[Daxx]

they didnt programm it into there it was like an accidental programming watch the e3 demo he says its a mistake/accident the didnt mean to

One wonders if you understand the concept of emergent features and the role of iteration on procedural gameplay. It's not a "mistake", since the word mistake implies that it's wrong, aberrant, and needs to be removed. The ability to send things into orbit is simply the product of the game's physics system and the abilities of the UFO - whilst it may be emergent and unpredicted, this does not make it a mistake.

[munchkin5]

maby fat creatureswill float

[DarkDragon]

It's not a mistake, it's just like when you tell the creature to bite something and walk at the same time, the creature will drag it. The same happens with the physics system and the UFO, the UFO can abduct stuff so it creates some kind of gravity system to abduct creatures but if you turn it off in the middle of the process the creature will be at the mercy of the planets physics system interacting with the force the abducting beam was applying before, etc.

[Met]

I rather like this quote and I think it goes well here.

"It's not a bug... It's a feature!"

[Temple]

Its kind of like suggesting that throwing things is a mistake in the real world, since it is an interaction between our ability to pick things up and the laws of physics...

[Met]

Its kind of like suggesting that throwing things is a mistake in the real world, since it is an interaction between our ability to pick things up and the laws of physics...

I don't understand.

[Temple]

Its kind of like suggesting that throwing things is a mistake in the real world, since it is an interaction between our ability to pick things up and the laws of physics...

I don't understand.

Saying that the "throwing creatures into orbit using the abduction tool" is a mistake is like claiming the ability to throw a rock is a mistake. 

[Met]

I think he meant by "mistake" was perhaps it wasn't intended that that would happen when he through a creature up.

[Temple]

I think he meant by "mistake" was perhaps it wasn't intended that that would happen when he through a creature up.

Maaaaybe... But that requires more interpretation than the obvious answer, and Im feeling very Occamy today.

[aquaman]

So we're discussing what other unexpected things might happen that weren't originally planned in the making of the game.

[Uroboros]

I still believe that you probably wont be able to throw a creature into actual orbit, and instead WW was just exaggerating in excited reflection. Some things arent meant to be taken literally, and I think that might have been one of those things.

[Drakkelian]

I think Vulcans point here is that do you think there'll be more things that will be in Spore that the developers didn't really intend to make but ended up finding it and leaving it there. They never intended for you to be able to throw things with the abduction beam, but when they found the bug that did it they realized it would be a fun thing to add to the game so they made it a feature.

I think it really adds to the games depth when it even surprises a developer. Like during one of the E3 demos, Will Wright was surprised to find a crop circle like feature carved into the surface of a barren rocky planet he'd happened across. That sorta thing makes the game look more fun overall.

[DaMuncha]

Well when you create a procedualy generated game of course you can expect to see alot of things you would not have dreamed of finding in a game of its type, being created purely by accedent. Same with the uplift game, I can imagine him going back to a race hes uplifted and seeing something that wasnt planned to go into the game being invented or some realy awsome looking creature that had evolved purely by chance. And yes I can imagine the game creating a supreme race purely by chance that does seem hell bent on populating the stars (or destroying them). Reminds me of LEXX.

[heylister]

I don't know perhaps we might find i glitch where two planets are fused together but then it'll turn out to be really fun and interesting and you'll be glad that the glitch was there and bookmark the spot where you found the planet.

[Luminar]

Remember that computer programs are precise and perfect. "Mistakes" with say, terraforming tools, are either down to simple human error, or have to be specifically programmed in. Though I like the concept of it not always being quite under your control, adds a little dash of realism without spoling the fun.

[dogzer]

I think the creature orbit thing wasn't done on purpose, but it makes sense that they orbit, it's not really a mistake, it's just unintended coolness right?

On the editor the creature speed and strength, etc, seems pretty much controled so doesn't sound like there's going to be much room for mistakes. But with the spaceship there seems to be a lot of tools and stuff that's going to allow you to do funny 'mistakes' like the orbiting thing.

[Noflunk]

Though its not a "mistake" id like to know how they'll combat someone who wants to put all three types of mouth (Carnivore, omnivore, and herbivore) on one creature...how will that work?

[Uroboros]

Though its not a "mistake" id like to know how they'll combat someone who wants to put all three types of mouth (Carnivore, omnivore, and herbivore) on one creature...how will that work?

Why would they want to combat that at all? Freedom of choice, given that those mouths will all cost the player DNA which could have otherwise been used for other more potentially useful things.

On the editor the creature speed and strength, etc, seems pretty much controled so doesn't sound like there's going to be much room for mistakes. But with the spaceship there seems to be a lot of tools and stuff that's going to allow you to do funny 'mistakes' like the orbiting thing.

I think most of the funny surprises will come from the procedural animation deal, personally. Im hoping to stumble across a configuration of parts that'll lead to an unusual, but cool way of running or attacking. As time has gone on, we're all aware that with the lack of new original demo videos, we're starting to notice the same old preset animations cropping up (the strides/backflip/happy/sad things), but im still hoping for the "cool animation bug" things. :3

[aligon]

OK, this is kind of completely off topic, but I was just wondering whether or not it is possible to abduct vehicles in the game...
It seems like it's harder to pick up larger creatures than smaller ones, but might the UFO's abduction system evolve as you gain more features/points/resources/etc. ?
What I mean is, maybe at first you can only pick up really small creatures while large ones are close to impossible to abduct, but as you continue to play, you might be able to pick up larger things, like actual vehicles, which you could bring back to your planet to experiment with.

[mccarty181]

OK, this is kind of completely off topic, but I was just wondering whether or not it is possible to abduct vehicles in the game...
It seems like it's harder to pick up larger creatures than smaller ones, but might the UFO's abduction system evolve as you gain more features/points/resources/etc. ?
What I mean is, maybe at first you can only pick up really small creatures while large ones are close to impossible to abduct, but as you continue to play, you might be able to pick up larger things, like actual vehicles, which you could bring back to your planet to experiment with.

I would think you could look at what WW says in the GDC 05 video when hes trrying to abduct its not confirmed but it hints at it

[Squirrel]

Though its not a "mistake" id like to know how they'll combat someone who wants to put all three types of mouth (Carnivore, omnivore, and herbivore) on one creature...how will that work?

Why would they want to combat that at all? Freedom of choice, given that those mouths will all cost the player DNA which could have otherwise been used for other more potentially useful things.

On the editor the creature speed and strength, etc, seems pretty much controled so doesn't sound like there's going to be much room for mistakes. But with the spaceship there seems to be a lot of tools and stuff that's going to allow you to do funny 'mistakes' like the orbiting thing.

I think most of the funny surprises will come from the procedural animation deal, personally. Im hoping to stumble across a configuration of parts that'll lead to an unusual, but cool way of running or attacking. As time has gone on, we're all aware that with the lack of new original demo videos, we're starting to notice the same old preset animations cropping up (the strides/backflip/happy/sad things), but im still hoping for the "cool animation bug" things. :3

It seems to me that the running/walking animations in the game have become less interesting as the game proceeds.  Now it seems only the legs move instead of the whole body moving.  Look at the old video with the bird with many mouths in it.  The head moves from side to side because of the weight, but in the more recent ones, such as the one with robin williams, the body seems frozen in place.

[DaMuncha]

I wonder if/how you could create a wheel creature, like those robots from star wars. That their body is basicaly a wheel with arms sticking out from the middle and the creature moves by rolling around. Or better yet have suction cups on the outside like a octopus so it can scale any surface.

[Oviraptor]

I wonder if/how you could create a wheel creature, like those robots from star wars. That their body is basicaly a wheel with arms sticking out from the middle and the creature moves by rolling around. Or better yet have suction cups on the outside like a octopus so it can scale any surface.

This is one of the classic debates here on this forum, dates back a long time: http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=817.0

[Uroboros]

It seems to me that the running/walking animations in the game have become less interesting as the game proceeds.  Now it seems only the legs move instead of the whole body moving.  Look at the old video with the bird with many mouths in it.  The head moves from side to side because of the weight, but in the more recent ones, such as the one with robin williams, the body seems frozen in place.

Yeah, i've noticed that too, but im not certain that they've completely done away with it. It was a long time between the initial spore demo and the more recent demo (with the odd half-spider-like creatures as the main, rather than the willosaur). The initial demo wanted to show off, and they were going to use premade creatures to demonstrate some of the things you could made. That may have allowed them to make creatures that didnt bug out the moment you told them to move. You have to bear in mind they didnt have a creature editor demo up for playing with at the old conferences/meets, maybe that was for a reason. It doesnt give a good impression if WW says "You can make anything", and when you do make something a little obscure, it either crashes or the slight, non-rigid body just happens to do a mexican wave due to an unforseen hiccup. The second demo we were shown didnt include loading up premade creatures, but still featured a preset world designed just for WW and his presentation. The difference? The creature editor demo that people eventually got their hands on.

The creature editor had to stand up to actual interested gamers making creatures. While that doesnt actually ammount to any more stress than usual, it means the game has a big chance to embarrass itself with major bugs, or crashing. The rigidness of the latest demo runs might have just been a temporary way of making it look more finished than it is. The core of the game might be nearing completion, but in my humble opinion, such an open creature editor would be difficult to polish if they were to use semi-rigid/flexible bodies/masses. Maybe im being a little too hopeful? Maybe after a length of testing, they decided that the flexible bodies were too much for the budget/time-scale they had in mind? I dont know, but im keeping my fingers crossed. I want my semi-werbly pudgemonsters and unsteady mantis-giraffes thankyouverymuch ;3

[Hectonkhyres]

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that EA is going to be providing a lot of patches to Spore. The good news is that there will be a million players working day and night as diligent playtesters who will (rightfully) take it as a mark of pride to be able to find a new way to break Spore. There will probably be at least one forum devoted purely to the topic of bugs and it, without a doubt, will be flooded.

But, after two or three months, things will die down as the more common bugs get weeded out one after another. Once in a while, but at decreasing intervals, someone will cook up a new abomination that can only occur only under horribly improbable circumstances. Then modders will start screwing with the laws of physics and whole new bugs start up because of incompatabilities.

[DaMuncha]

On that note. Do not play Gothic 3. It is highly ill advised, as no matter how many patches they put out that game will never be fixed.

[Axelgear]

I know this will make everyone go ugh, but...

A BIG mistake: Announcing Spore over a year before it would come out! I'd prefer games announced 2 months at most before their release date, or otherwise they torture and tantalize you non-stop.

[russellmania4]

That was probably the biggest mistake that was ever made in the history of Will Wright games, you're right. Speaking of which, I think I'm going crazy from lack of info. When I first got interested in Spore (back in October of 2005), it wasn't so bad cuz I was always finding new info. Then I forgot about Spore for about 6 months (I call those the days of blissful ignorance). Then in May, I unknowingly came across a new 3 minute Spore video on some random website that wasn't even related to gaming. Then I found a link to this forum and a week later, boom, I'm a registered member on Gaming Steve. Since then, I've been addicted to Spore. GIVE ME BACK MY LIFE!....or at least some information....

[ElemenoP]

How would you actually throw your creature into orbit now, as it would either burn up in the atmosphere (if that gets implemented), or explode in space(which we know happens.)

[aquaman]

I'm guessing the game won't have air resistance included in the (non-existant) physics engine, so your creature will stay in orbit...

[ElemenoP]

Yeah, but it would still a-splode. Remeber in the old GDC video when that spider thing blew up on pluto because there was no atmophsere?

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, but it would still a-splode. Remeber in the old GDC video when that spider thing blew up on pluto because there was no atmophsere?

Not if it's orbiting IN the atmosphere.  There's no air fiction to stop it and it won't explode because it's not in space.  In theory, depending on how the physics engine works, you could have a creature orbiting about 20 feet of the ground.  The creature would lose it's "locked to the ground status" when picked up by the UFO, then you'd just have to throw it at a low angle on a trajectory that has it avoiding hitting any mountains.

Or if you don't want to think that badly of the physics engine, imagine its burst carcass orbiting the planet instead.
I also think the name of this topic should be "Spore: Happy Accidents"

[Axelgear]

It's my guess that the Physics Engine runs on a "What Goes Up, Must Come Down" sort of basis. I think you can only orbit a creature if it's thrown into a certain position, after which point it just consistently rotates around the planet, I'm guessing until you leave.

[Yokto]

There is a diffrence betwine a mestake and a unplaned feature or way to sloving a problem. Almost all my favorit games inculde unplaned features or unplaned ways to solve problems.

[munchkin5]

I'd love to find things like that, things even the developers don't know you can do in the game, like ride a boulder down a cliff face or something like that, alot can happen in a world made procedurally.

[/lurk]

As a bizarre thought: the ability to orbit a planet would make for some very interesting kinds of plants.

With no atmosphere between them and the sun, a plant could absorb vast quantities of light and grow to a collossal size.

A plant that always faces the sun could block it out, and provide food for an entire planet of nocturnal* species, as well as possibly being a source of mythology and worship for soceities of said species, due to the ridiculous size it could reach.

If it was in a different orbit, it would have a very intersting life-cycle, only opening its leaves while it's under the sun. Depending on it's orbit, this could be quite frequently, or only once a year or even longer. Would it bombard the planet with seeds after absorbing the amount of light it needs for energy? Would simply split into smaller plants? If, in it's infancy, it grew on the surface, how could it get into orbit?

It will be the plant editor that truly dooms us all. Aye, for one so overlooked, it wields terrible power.

*Is a species nocturnal if it lives on a planet where there is no daytime?

[Uroboros]

A planet with a blanket of plantlife that blocks out all sun in an orbitting canopy, interesting.

[munchkin5]

at least we know if we don't get flying creatures we can still make our creatures fly, i think the idea lurks talking about might not work due to the fact that to make the game have so much freedom the physics engine wouldn't alow it, you probably can't make plants over a certain size anyway. Not that i though it was a literal idea.

[aligon]

*Is a species nocturnal if it lives on a planet where there is no daytime?

The creatures living on this kind of planet would have no concept for daylight vs. night if they lived on a planet of perpetual darkness, and so would probably no word it, they wouldn't be nocturnal or anything, they'd just be...alive, I guess...
But yea that's a cool idea with the giant plant-cover, but where would it get all its nutrients? And i think it gets gradually harder for plants to pull nutrients up to their leaves the higher these are positioned, so a giant plant that practically orbits the planet would have a hard time bringing food up from the ground...

[DaMuncha]

A plant in orbit isnt attached to the ground. Also, higher up theres less affect by gravity. Plants only have a problem with bringing up food because of gravity. If you could attach packets of dirt and water (which u changed regularly) to feed the thing, it could work. As long as you dont put the plant so high that it has no air to breath. Also plants and trees do have a life span and some plants can never live long enough to grow beyond a certain size. So theres alot of factors that come into it.

[aligon]

A plant in orbit isnt attached to the ground. Also, higher up theres less affect by gravity. Plants only have a problem with bringing up food because of gravity. If you could attach packets of dirt and water (which u changed regularly) to feed the thing, it could work. As long as you dont put the plant so high that it has no air to breath. Also plants and trees do have a life span and some plants can never live long enough to grow beyond a certain size. So theres alot of factors that come into it.

true, but something like that wouldn't evolve on its own, it would need some kind of intervention (to bring the "packets" of soil/water etc. for example)

[Manna]

A plant in orbit isnt attached to the ground. Also, higher up theres less affect by gravity. Plants only have a problem with bringing up food because of gravity. If you could attach packets of dirt and water (which u changed regularly) to feed the thing, it could work. As long as you dont put the plant so high that it has no air to breath. Also plants and trees do have a life span and some plants can never live long enough to grow beyond a certain size. So theres alot of factors that come into it.

true, but something like that wouldn't evolve on its own, it would need some kind of intervention (to bring the "packets" of soil/water etc. for example)

Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship? Some creature brings up some water and soil and in return the plant produces fruit to eat.

[aligon]

Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship? Some creature brings up some water and soil and in return the plant produces fruit to eat.

I guess, but what kind of creature would evolve to fly practically in orbit and at the same time be able to carry soil, etc. on the way.
I think this kind of thing would really have to be completely artificial, I mean, it's possible, but it would have to be completely engineered by a sentient race (but then... I guess you could call it a symbiotic relationship between that race and the plant, so I just proved myself wrong! YAY!)

[vulcan101]

this has nothing to do with a plant.
you have a moon orbiting a gas giant and the planet is orbiting sun. you then blow up the sun or get rid of it by some means, after a while depending on how far away the planet is , it would lose light and the suns gravity to keep it in orbit, therefore the planet goes parading into space. (BTW this is an idea produced from a NASA physicist). the moon contains life, and the gas giant is there to provide enough gravity to keep the moon in place during its journey though space. when theres no light theres no heat causing an ice age and this would alter the evolution path of all life on the moon.

this really has no point but it seems logical enough, does any1 else think this could occur, due to the fact that we know you can blow up planets but we don't no about suns.   it would just be cool to see how much life would change in those thousands of years (hours real time)

[Slartibartfast]

this has nothing to do with a plant.
you have a moon orbiting a gas giant and the planet is orbiting sun. you then blow up the sun or get rid of it by some means, after a while depending on how far away the planet is , it would lose light and the suns gravity to keep it in orbit, therefore the planet goes parading into space. (BTW this is an idea produced from a NASA physicist). the moon contains life, and the gas giant is there to provide enough gravity to keep the moon in place during its journey though space. when theres no light theres no heat causing an ice age and this would alter the evolution path of all life on the moon.

this really has no point but it seems logical enough, does any1 else think this could occur, due to the fact that we know you can blow up planets but we don't no about suns.   it would just be cool to see how much life would change in those thousands of years (hours real time)

Blowing up a star might put out the light, but would in no way negate it's gravitational pull.

Actually, the sun disappearing was one of the "what ifs" Einstein came up with trying to figure out how gravity works.

We may be able to blow up stars in Spore, but everything would be dead within minutes.  Not enough time to evolve really.

[Yokto]

If the life not allready have evolved to surive without a sun. Only a small part of the life on earth surives on light on earth. Much or it can be found deep underground or near heatvent consumining chemical biproducts from the earths core.

And are we not moving a bit off topic?

[/lurk]

How about a spherical plant large enough to have its own gravitational pull, and attract oxygen and other nutrients to it by means of an atmosphere? Orbiting a star as a planet in close orbit, it could absorb light and heat from the star, and absorb nutrients from its own atmosphere.

Would this produce a bizarre symbiotic relationship with a civilisation that may dwell there, one that couldn't occur naturally? With the amount of Carbon Dioxide a planet-sized plant would require, even if the inside of it has died and it is now feeding off it's own decaying remains, is enormous. Could a civilisation run enough combustion engines to produce that much Carbon Dioxide, and breath the Oxygen that the plant creates, thus forming a symbiotic relationship? The plant couldn't survive without the civlisation in this case, so how could they come to live on it?

If the inside of the giant plant is decaying, wouldn't that create gases like methane, and eventually rip the planet-plant apart in a massive explosion?

What is the plant was sufficiently massive to have stars orbiting it, rather than the other way round?
...

I've taken this topic far away from its intended course...

[aligon]

How about a spherical plant large enough to have its own gravitational pull, and attract oxygen and other nutrients to it by means of an atmosphere? Orbiting a star as a planet in close orbit, it could absorb light and heat from the star, and absorb nutrients from its own atmosphere.

Would this produce a bizarre symbiotic relationship with a civilisation that may dwell there, one that couldn't occur naturally? With the amount of Carbon Dioxide a planet-sized plant would require, even if the inside of it has died and it is now feeding off it's own decaying remains, is enormous. Could a civilisation run enough combustion engines to produce that much Carbon Dioxide, and breath the Oxygen that the plant creates, thus forming a symbiotic relationship? The plant couldn't survive without the civlisation in this case, so how could they come to live on it?

If the inside of the giant plant is decaying, wouldn't that create gases like methane, and eventually rip the planet-plant apart in a massive explosion?

What is the plant was sufficiently massive to have stars orbiting it, rather than the other way round?
...

I've taken this topic far away from its intended course...

Wow, now THAT kind of makes sense...
It makes me think, maybe you could simply have a giant plant growing on an entire planet and slowly sucking it dry, but it is such an adaptive organism that it uses up all of the elements that it finds until the planet is completely gone, and all that's left is a giant plant-planet orbiting the sun and possibly feeding off of itself...

[Yokto]

Which is much like the world i The Saga of Ryzom i might add.

[aligon]

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that EA is going to be providing a lot of patches to Spore. The good news is that there will be a million players working day and night as diligent playtesters who will (rightfully) take it as a mark of pride to be able to find a new way to break Spore. There will probably be at least one forum devoted purely to the topic of bugs and it, without a doubt, will be flooded.

But, after two or three months, things will die down as the more common bugs get weeded out one after another. Once in a while, but at decreasing intervals, someone will cook up a new abomination that can only occur only under horribly improbable circumstances. Then modders will start screwing with the laws of physics and whole new bugs start up because of incompatabilities.

I was just looking at this, and thinking, "But isn't the team working on spore supposed to be abnormally small compared to that of other games?".
How are they going to cope with this immense ammount of bugs, which you say is sure to happen (and I agree)?