So, distilled down to the basics, you think that there should be a bunch of expansions and genre-defying products, a la Streets of Sim City, for Spore. You'll have to pardon me, but nothing makes me more nervous than the prospect of expansion packs. They're a dangerous trend, replacing actual content with a cheap  grab at money.

 With expansions people will scream "OMFG TEH SIMS1!!1!" and the game will lose a lot of its appeal to an influential market. With a game as big as Spore (e.g. infinite) nobody's going to want to put down at least twenty bucks for the ability to hang out around deep sea vents or to play with a boomerang.

The thing that concerns me with your idea is that games sell for a certain kind of gameplay and your argument is that such a concept doesn't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you bought Civ II because you wanted a strategy game, if you want to play with horses and spearmen that's fine, but it's still a strategy game. (I prefer the Napoleonic wars myself, Rise of Nations is great for that.) The problem I'm getting at is that if people see the game as a flimsy collection of stabs at genres centered around a dynamic, cool game, they're going to play the dynamic and cool game and feel totally screwed because they paid for some half-assed minigames. Once stuff like this feels tacked on, people will be wary of it. If I just want to play the Bejewelled minigame, I'll just go out and buy Bejewelled, and if I want to play with tanks, I'll go out and buy Command and Conquer.

Some may argue that this belief isn't very progressive and if someone was making my argument about another game I'd disagree with them, but with a game that is essentially a collection of quality concepts from several genres like Spore, this is the most surefire way to ruin sales. Will's giving us a sandbox to play in and be creative with, not a platform for EA to spam expansions.

While your ideas are very well elucidated (I've read a few forum essays in my time and this is one of the better ones), they are, as you admitted, a bit of a pipe dream. There's potential, but I think it's misplaced. Now then, folks, feel free to commence the flaming if you so wish

Here's hoping I'm in before the lock...the metaphorical lock?

I'd suggest three forums: Spore General, Spore Q/A and Spore Speculation. These subheads easily can contain all the content I've seen on this board. If you have six, seven or eight subforums, there's a distinct chance there's going to be several neglected ones that are just eating up space on the main forum index page and making the community look inactive to any outsiders passing by. Sure, Spore could use some more room, but not so much that it overpowers other forums either, I'd say set the cap at four subforums like most of the other categories have.

That is the pinnacle of comedy.

The rabbit's name is Oolong, and there's a website with pictures of him in bizarre places. It's Japanese, go figure.

And  yes, that picture rules. Big time.

This interview from Impress PC Watch via Gamespot via Joystiq reveals a lot about Sony's strategy for the PS3. While it'll ship with a HDD slot, the system will not ship with a drive by default. Consumers can buy one if they want, but even a 120gig drive will apparently soon prove useless. Rather, Kutaragi brings up the concept of "Cell Storage" again, which seems to be a distributed storage system that requires network connectivity. Google's gMail taught us that storage is dirt cheap, so Kutaragi's strategy may have a point.

He also said that PS3 drives might very well ship with Linux. He also suggests that Cell will be able to run Windows or Tiger as applications e.g. emulation and hopes that maybe someone will write an OS for the PS3. Kutaragi doesn't seem to be afraid of the PS3 being used for traditional computer tasks, a stance he claims is opposite to Microsoft's avoidance to letting the X-Box run Windows.

Other highlights include: Broadcast quality HD editing applications being one of Sony's goal (a killer app to distinguish the PS3's role as a supercomputer) and Minority Report-esque interfaces via a camera like the EyeToy.

The problem with PC gaming is that for the end user, the entry costs (both in knowledge and hardware) are too high. Furthermore, this is a hole the industry has dug itself into by growing too quickly and pandering to the tastes of an obsessive minority.

That's a pretty rough charge I sling at the PC gaming industry, but consider the following. The only way to keep up with the pace of PC gaming (e.g. to be on the cutting edge) is to have the latest hardware. The only cost-effective way (unless you're obscenely rich and can afford a new Dimension XPS every few months) is to build your own PC. A quick overview of what I like to call the Halo demographic, which is roughly defiend as people who took up gaming because they heard it was cool, reveals that they have little to no PC experience beyond, say, browsing the internet or typing a paper. They can buy a console which will be in good working order for three to five years and be done with it. No hassle.

Meanwhile, apparently the PC games industry has climbed an especially lofty ivory tower. System requirements on the newest games, compared to the kinds of systems you tend to see out in the world are insane. Not everybody has a l33t h4xx0r gaming rig (like I would claim that I do). Case in point: Doom 3, a game that despite the fact that everything seems to be laminated should have immense appeal. What average consumer in their right mind will buy Doom 3 if they get the slightest impression that it'll run like crap on their PC? Rather, the consumer is more likely to go buy a console shooter or platformer because they know that it's gonna work to a certain standard.  When I look at my peers, I see a market ruled by the economics and security of console hardware. Not to say that PC fanatics don't exist, but they are in the overwhelmingly extreme minority.

Don't get me wrong, I love my PC and I love toying with it. However, if the PC games industry wants to survive in the face of consoles, especially these next gen. behemoths, they'll either need to push to bring hardware costs down or really push development towards making games that scale across all manner of hardware.  I think there's a lot of innovation in the PC gaming industry and I'd argue that there are many genres where it's a superior platform, but I also think that the industry's putting itself at risk of being destroyed by its own hubris.

I picked up on the genesis of the 360 branding somewhere. I think it was the OurColony video said that basically, 360 was the best moniker in focus groups. Just about everyone gave it a different connotation. Some said it reminded them of a ring e.g. commitment and stability while others said that it made them think of something being complete or perfect.

Basically, they saw that it allowed consumers to draw their own conclusions about what the name means and ran with it. Even the design of the machine itself doesn't really make more than vague suggestions about what it means to you, especially if you consider the physical lines and color of the hardware. I think the advent of integrated wireless controllers helped a lot with this.

To go completely off topic, I think the PS3's design is a statement to its raw power, but it also makes it somewhat intimidating. As much as I love the PS3's hardware, I think the 360 wins when it comes to design. I doubt industrial design will affect console sales, but I think it shows that MS put a lot of thought into making the design sell the console as much as the hardware itself.

I'd imagine that a couple based upon certain internet shock sites may find their way into Spore. I think syphonbyte and I are on the same track with this...if not, never mind. I really don't wanna see that. I can stand a Squirtle or two running about, but I'd rather not be reminded of those things that you wish you could unsee.

That and cartoon turds. None of that. Poop is out outright.