Author Topic: The Potential of Spore  (Read 22793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2005, 11:23:22 am »
Yeah, all the sub-games or sub-genres would be optional.

Good god, not even Will would condone all those things happening at once - it would be sheer lunacy!

Now, if someone WANTED to play them all at once, they could ("This is Spartan-117 - this planet is COVERED in these little sentient plants... they keep bringing me things... permission to nuke the entire world?)

But more than likely, people would just pick and choose which parts they wanted to play - and if one day they felt more like shooting than creating,t hey just flip a switch or click and icon, and there they go, but it's still all the same game. SimCity plus GTA: Build your own megalopolis, then steal a car and drive around in it :)
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 11:42:38 am by Jaleho »

Offline kthx

  • Boot Hill Bandit
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2005, 01:10:09 pm »
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 :P
kthxbye

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2005, 02:02:28 pm »
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.

Yes, only because I see Spore (or something like it) as becoming something more than just another video game. I think it has the ability to become a media all to itself, beyond games or movies or books - an entirely new type of way to create and experience stories.

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.

Normally I'd agree with you, mainly because most expansion packs are just lots more content. But like I've said, I think Spore expansion packs would give us more TOOLS, not content. We'd still be responsible for creating the content (they'd probably toss in a few just to show us what was possible with the tool.)

Imagine if, instead of House Party, Living Large, Hot Date, Vacation, Superstar, Makin' Magic and Unleashed, they came out with an expansion pack which, rather than giving you lots of content, gave you in-game tools to create new objects, clothes and actions. An expansion pack that allowed you to create new places to visit like downtown, magic town, vacation places, hollywood (or whatever supersta had), and neighborhood markets - not giving you lots of content, but the tools to build those places on your own. An expansion pack to let you create pets of any shape and size. Wouldn't THOSE have been worth a lot more to players -- especially if they knew they could log on and have all the new clothes, locations and animals download from a server updated daily with all the stuff you normally have to find on fansites?

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.

When you say it like that, sure it sounds stupid. But imagine a simple "projectile weapon tool". Suddenly we, the creators, can now start adding creatures like bombadier beetles, spitting cobras, archer fish, web-projecting spiders, horny toads shooting blood from their eyes, spraying skunks, ant-lions flinging rocks at prey trapped in their pits, birds dropping prey onto the rocky ground below, quill-throwing porcupines. Tribes can build spear-throwers, bows and arrows, boomerangs, bolas, slingshots, throwing knives, simple trebuches and more. Cities can have defense towers, "deer" hunting safaris, archery tournaments, paintball fights in the streets. Civilizations can have armies of foot soldiers armed with any type of gun from any era or game you can conceive. UFOs could grab comets and fling them into the sun or at enemy worlds.

And that is just ONE tool. If an expansion pack can give me a dozen of those new tools - yeah, it's worth $20 to me.

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.

My arguement is that the fact that it DOES exist is what's holding back games from being more than a hobby or "waste of time". Something with this technology could become a tool that goes beyond PLAY, where plenty of people could still use it as a recreational game, but scientists, soldiers and businessmen could use it to learn, train and market. It could be something so much bigger, and for those who don't WANT the bigger, it would still cater to their play side no different that it does now (or will... dangit).

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.)

I love imagining how a society near the ocean would actually develop. I love seeing my people discover pottery, or the alphabet, and I imagine what their world must be like. Unfortunately (for me), they keep driving it towards creating EXISTING civilizations. In Civ II, I would ALWAYS name my civ something totally new, so I WOULDN'T think of them as "The Americans" or "The Greeks". I wanted to control my own nation of people as they grew, not just recreate some nation that already existed. Civ was the closest I could get.

When I played civ, I thought "wouldn't it be cool if, every time I founded a new city, I could actually DESIGN that city, like in SimCity or Pharoah/Caesar? Or if I could design the planet like SimEarth?" When I played SimCity, I thought "Wouldn't it be cool if I could zoom in on one of those cars and see what that person did all day, like in The Sims?" When I played SimEarth, I thought "wouldn't it be cool if I could edit the creatures that evolved like in SimLife, rather than see them progress through a pre-made series of icons?" And so on and so on.

Spore is doing just that. All I'm wondering is "If they can pull all this off, what MORE can this do? Just how powerful can they make this game, anyway?"

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.

But isn't that because it's the way the industry has trained us to think our whole lives? "Keep buying more and more different games - build up a library." It's like buying a CD for one good song - someone wised up, put all the songs on one server, let us buy the ones we want, and burn our own cd that is 100% songs we like, not just one or two.

If they can make a game which contains every time of gameplay we want, where for a couple bucks, we customize the pieces we want, isn't that smarter than having to buy a dozen different $50 games to satisfy all our different interests?

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 :P

It all comes down to something like this: A lot of us want space fleets in Spore (for example). As it stands right now, Spore doesn't appear to have them. So we can either:

A: Wait for the Maxis team to include them - which means we wait even longer to play this game we are all excited about and will still never get all the stuff in it we could dream of.

B: Play the game as is, and be forced to go buy a totally seperate game to get our "space fleet" fix

or

C: Buy and play the game as is, knowing that in another year, we can buy the "space fleet" expansion for a cost less than a whole seperate game, and which is compatable with ALL the stuff we've spent a year designing and enjoying.

We'd all love for the game to come out right now with everything we've wished for in it, but it just won't happen. When it comes out, we will get what we get, and chances are, we will all love it. It's just a matter of would we rather split our time between a dozen games that we sort-of like, or focus all our play time on ONE game that, over time, meets our dreams step by step?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 02:10:11 pm by Jaleho »

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2005, 02:17:05 pm »
Also, couldn't the fact that expansion packs cost so much and provide so little be due to the very issue Will began his speech adressing - the cost of content? "Living Large" was that 101st apple he mentioned which required an expensive team of artists to harvest for us. In Spore, we the users would be making that content. What was probably the only valuable part of living large? Ceiling fans? The ability to have objects on the ceiling? That was one little tool that was something new nobody had thought to include the first time around, but it sure wasn't worth $20.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 02:19:16 pm by Jaleho »

Offline Borogove

  • Venture Conqueror
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • mimsy: adj. - flimsy and miserable :(
    • View Profile
    • Meyermike.com
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2005, 08:30:06 pm »
webforum arguments are altogether too much fun  :D
It's just a matter of would we rather split our time between a dozen games that we sort-of like, or focus all our play time on ONE game that, over time, meets our dreams step by step?

Call me crazy, but I think I am the kind of weirdo who would go for the first option.  Play a dozen games I like, or one that someday might have all those types of gameplay?  Well, deciding which dozen would be the hard part.  There may be a lot of derivative, crappy games out there, but there are also a lot of real gems.  As awesome as I expect Spore to be, I don't think it can or should incorporate all the kinds of gameplay out there (despite what a Wal-mart shelf may look like, there are new gameplay ideas out there all the time.  Check out http://www.experimentalgameplay.com and http://indiegamejam.com).  And even supposing it did, I don't really see the advantage of combining them into one game. (I need a shrug emoticon for this spot)

That really doesn't change that fact that Spore add-ons could be really really cool.  Some kind of "sport-editor" for settting up games your creatures could play would be crazy-go-nuts!

I agree that there is huge potential for Spore expansions, and it is an intriguing notion to be dropping in new gameplay the way expansions nowadays add content.  It's just that if you are coding up a new game...why then go and make it part of another game?  Better to liscense out the Spore engine for developers to make cool stuff with.  That way when I want gameplay-style "A" I click one icon on my desktop, and when I want gameplay-type "B" I click another, which is at least as simple as finding the gameplay "X" portion of Spore.  Plus this way we could get it away from EA, potentially.

Of course Wario Ware put together all kids of games with varying gameplay to great effect.  Except that maybe the gameplay of Wario Ware might better be considered "figure out and beat microgame in a few seconds, repeat", rather than as the gameplay(s) of the timing, dodging, matching, etc. that the microgames used.
Use those talents you have. You will make it. You will give joy to the world. Take this tip from nature: The woods would be a very silent place if no birds sang except those who sang best.
-- Bernard Meltzer

Check out my games:  http://www.meyermike.com

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2005, 06:48:40 am »
webforum arguments are altogether too much fun  :D

Naah, it's not an arguement, just a discussion. I'd be the first to say all my ideas posted here could be totally wrong. I just see the value in presenting them. Chances are, folks will see things a little bit my way, I'll see things a little bit their way, and we'll meet somewhere in the middle with how to make Spore even better. My ideas here are WAY out in left field, but up until this year, so was the concept of a game where you played from microbe to galactic god, too :)

Will told us not to think our ideas were too big and to see how we might make them happen for real. That's all I'm doing here - trying out that advice.

It's just a matter of would we rather split our time between a dozen games that we sort-of like, or focus all our play time on ONE game that, over time, meets our dreams step by step?

Call me crazy, but I think I am the kind of weirdo who would go for the first option.  Play a dozen games I like, or one that someday might have all those types of gameplay?  Well, deciding which dozen would be the hard part.  There may be a lot of derivative, crappy games out there, but there are also a lot of real gems.  As awesome as I expect Spore to be, I don't think it can or should incorporate all the kinds of gameplay out there (despite what a Wal-mart shelf may look like, there are new gameplay ideas out there all the time.  Check out http://www.experimentalgameplay.com and http://indiegamejam.com).  And even supposing it did, I don't really see the advantage of combining them into one game. (I need a shrug emoticon for this spot)

That really doesn't change that fact that Spore add-ons could be really really cool.  Some kind of "sport-editor" for settting up games your creatures could play would be crazy-go-nuts!

I agree that there is huge potential for Spore expansions, and it is an intriguing notion to be dropping in new gameplay the way expansions nowadays add content.  It's just that if you are coding up a new game...why then go and make it part of another game?  Better to liscense out the Spore engine for developers to make cool stuff with.  That way when I want gameplay-style "A" I click one icon on my desktop, and when I want gameplay-type "B" I click another, which is at least as simple as finding the gameplay "X" portion of Spore.  Plus this way we could get it away from EA, potentially.

Of course Wario Ware put together all kids of games with varying gameplay to great effect.  Except that maybe the gameplay of Wario Ware might better be considered "figure out and beat microgame in a few seconds, repeat", rather than as the gameplay(s) of the timing, dodging, matching, etc. that the microgames used.

I think my big reason for what I'm suggesting is because I think something with Spore's technology has the power to REPLACE an OS - you wouldn't go to the desktop and click a new icon, because Spore would BE the desktop - you would never turn it off. Een when you went to bed, Spore would still be churning along - either evolving new critters, or evaluating new AI patterns, or running cycles to search for cures for cancer, like those screensavers do.

Sure, this is all way out there, but it's going to happen someday, somehow. I'm just thinking Spore is that first step - more than a game, but a gateway to a whole new future.

I mean, we're creating an entire galaxy here - what would you do if you sat down to play one day and saw one of your critters looking at the screen saying "who am I? Am I real?" Could a video game character obtain real sentience? If they can, it will be through generative systems.

But again, if we all just get a game where we can make giant green squirrels and blow up other planets, then get bored and move on to something else, it will still be a great game.

Offline s0lidmetal

  • Battlezone Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
    • View Profile
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2005, 07:45:03 am »
I really liked this essay, but there are a few problems.  If they were to directly mix the best of each game into Spore, it would be a fiasco.  Imagine combining Mario and Zelda and Tetris.  Instead of appealing to every gamer, it won't appeal to anyone.  Everyone will just be confused.  And I think, contrary to your beliefs, that placing more emphasis on one particular genre will be less effective than an equal emphasis on all the genres represented in Spore.  This is because, it will always be true that you can never satisfy anybody 100%.  There will always be someone out there that will critisize a game of being a clone, or unoriginal, or not fun.

And even though this looks to be a very interesting game, I don't think we will be playing it 6 years from now.  Sure, we are still playing Mario and countless Atari clones but maybe if the developers focused less on expansion packs, they could put their efforts into a sequel perhaps?  There is always ways for a game to improve.

The lifespan of this game will be decided by the strength of the community capabilities.

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2005, 08:04:59 am »
if the developers focused less on expansion packs, they could put their efforts into a sequel perhaps?  There is always ways for a game to improve.

Now see, this is another direction to go in that i think would be equally as powerful. However, it raises the question of portability - if they decide to do Spore 2 rather than expansion packs, does that mean everything we've done in Spore 1 is useless?

I've never played Sims 2, but does it let you bring over people, houses and families from Sims 1, or do you have to go and rebuild them all from scratch again? Can you import SimCity 3000 cities into SimCity 4?

I'm totally for having no expansion packs and simply playing Spore 1 until the second version comes out... IF... I can bring over everything I've made in Spore 1.

Offline Borogove

  • Venture Conqueror
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • mimsy: adj. - flimsy and miserable :(
    • View Profile
    • Meyermike.com
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2005, 08:31:47 am »
I dunno, it's hard to imagine Spore doing OS better than an actual OS does.  It certainly is conceivable that Spore could be the foundation on which hojillions of other games are built and played, but I don't see the advantage. 

As a gamer, I see it as mostly a hassle to go through Spore to get to the fun new game, with the upshot that the game then can use stuff I made...however it's gonna do that.  And also that there are already too many "platforms" for games. (a little off topic) It seems totally insane that I should be buying multiple systems to play the games I want, when they could work just as well on any one of my consoles/computers, there aren't 4 kinds of CDs that each require a different company's player... 

Back on track tho,
From the developer/publisher-other-than-EA side, I'd want to make a game that I can point to and yell, "We did that"!  And not have it part of an EA product-"if you do this and this you can get to the FPS add-on we did".  Plus, a Spore expansion has an unfortunate limit on it that you've already cut your audience down to the peeps that have Spore.

There's something to be said for having a persistent simulated universe-sandbox that you keep expanding on, but I don't see it as a good way to make new games.

Side Note:
If by some amazing chance a Spore add-on came out that could take over the Super Smash Brothers niche in my game library, I would both A: be extremely happy, and B: eat my hat.
Use those talents you have. You will make it. You will give joy to the world. Take this tip from nature: The woods would be a very silent place if no birds sang except those who sang best.
-- Bernard Meltzer

Check out my games:  http://www.meyermike.com

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2005, 09:40:12 am »
I dunno, it's hard to imagine Spore doing OS better than an actual OS does.  It certainly is conceivable that Spore could be the foundation on which hojillions of other games are built and played, but I don't see the advantage.

As much as I dislike the concept of Microsoft being a monopoly, there was definately an advantage to having Windows XP, Windows Media and Microsoft Internet Explorer all being intertwined. Users may have not liked having the freedom to use their preferred software and other companies would not like being shut out, but there was an inherent POWER in being able to design an app that used all those tools at once.

That's why I think someone should take the Spore technology and say "we're not making games anymore. Not an OS or a browser or a web app. Not a tv show or a movie. Not a streaming or sattelite radio station or cable network. Not a GPS locating system or a VRML site. We're making an entirely new persistant, ever-evolving media that noone has ever seen."

As a gamer, I see it as mostly a hassle to go through Spore to get to the fun new game, with the upshot that the game then can use stuff I made...however it's gonna do that.

There will always be a market for "games", be they our favorite shoot-em-ups or cutting edge technology like Katamari or that website you sent me. I'm just envisioning Spore becoming something bigger than a "game" that gamers play, but a WORLD where creators live.

And also that there are already too many "platforms" for games. (a little off topic) It seems totally insane that I should be buying multiple systems to play the games I want, when they could work just as well on any one of my consoles/computers, there aren't 4 kinds of CDs that each require a different company's player...

Back on track tho,
From the developer/publisher-other-than-EA side, I'd want to make a game that I can point to and yell, "We did that"!  And not have it part of an EA product-"if you do this and this you can get to the FPS add-on we did".

Now I'm going to contradict myself :) The concept of the free market is that competing companies are forced to make better games to attract companies. If there was only one game system, they would never bother making innovative games, because they know that you can't go anywhere else to get games - they'd just churn out crap and you'd have no choice but to play what they give you (although, they'd still have to compete with television, movies, books, comics and outdoor activities, of course)

So there would be a danger if Spore were the only game - they could very easily say "we're the only game out there people play, so let's be lazy and give them more crap to buy."

But do you really think an innovative thinker like Will Wright would be content just sitting back and churning out crap and raking in the dough? Sure, EA would, but not Will, or me, or any of the other really creative types who want to see MORE than just profits. Which is why maybe my idea should NOT be implemented until it can be done so outside of a too-big-for-its-own-good corporation like EA.

Plus, a Spore expansion has an unfortunate limit on it that you've already cut your audience down to the peeps that have Spore.

I think some of the concept of an expansion pack is also to attract new players to the original game. "I never bought Spore caus I wanted space battles, but now they have them for only five bucks more! I think I'll get it now!" It's a uncommon business strategy that I've seen a few people use - give away something free or cheap to get new blood into buying the original product. Produce expansion packs for five bucks that we current players can afford with pocket change. Bundle that expansion pack into every future copy of Spore, and don't raise the price any. Now the casual games sees "oh, it has THIS now, and it doesn't cost any more than it did before, yet I get more. Ok, I'll buy it now."

Sure, we might think "man, if I had just waited a year, I could have gotten all those new tools for the same price". And EA might be afraid of that too. But seriously, are any of us here NOT going to go buy the game on opening day, regardless of what they have or haven't included by that time?

There's something to be said for having a persistent simulated universe-sandbox that you keep expanding on, but I don't see it as a good way to make new games.

Now you're getting it. I'm not talking about REPLACING the game industry with a billion Spore plugins instead of seperate games. I'm talking about competing with the entire game industry on a level cinema and television do - totally different markets, but in the end, they're all competing for our recreation and free time. And I see SPore as a whole new media that has elements of them all - movies, games, websites, work tools, and so on.

Side Note:
If by some amazing chance a Spore add-on came out that could take over the Super Smash Brothers niche in my game library, I would both A: be extremely happy, and B: eat my hat.

Isn't that our Gladiator Arena wishlist idea? :)

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2005, 09:43:04 am »
So, if we're looking at Spore as just another video game (albeit a very powerful and innovative one) then no, I'm not expecting things like bejeweled minigames inside it. Most of my suggestions here are looking at it from a much bigger point of view, but as for a game that we play, get tired of, and move on, I think it's already damn well close to perfect!

Offline Oviraptor

  • Moderator
  • R-Type Force Pod
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
  • tastes just like chicken
    • View Profile
    • Oviraptor's World
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2005, 09:46:06 am »
So, if we're looking at Spore as just another video game (albeit a very powerful and innovative one) then no, I'm not expecting things like bejeweled minigames inside it. Most of my suggestions here are looking at it from a much bigger point of view, but as for a game that we play, get tired of, and move on, I think it's already damn well close to perfect!

Get tired of? Somehow I foresee myself playing this game for a looooong time. If I ever get tired of it, it will most likely that I am "taking a break" rather than moving on.

Offline Jaleho

  • Stargate Superstar
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • The Infamous El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Inflatable Studios
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2005, 10:13:07 am »
Get tired of? Somehow I foresee myself playing this game for a looooong time. If I ever get tired of it, it will most likely that I am "taking a break" rather than moving on.

Well, so do I - I'm just addressing those who have the "i play a lot of games and always find new ones" crowd.

Personally, from what I've seen of Spore, I can't imagine why I would ever need to play Civ or SimCity every again, but when I want my FPS fix I'll go back to Thief and when I want to pass time on the toilet, I'll play Tetris on the gameboy.

I'm expecting to play Spore for years... but if it DOES reamin just a game, I'll still need other outlets like writing and art to have total control.

I'm just wishing someone would make the ultimate 21st century story experience using this technology :)

Offline RiordanIX

  • Boot Hill Bandit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2005, 10:28:21 am »
...
That's why I think someone should take the Spore technology and say "we're not making games anymore. Not an OS or a browser or a web app. Not a tv show or a movie. Not a streaming or sattelite radio station or cable network. Not a GPS locating system or a VRML site. We're making an entirely new persistant, ever-evolving media that noone has ever seen."


I think you are taking this game too seriously.  You are probably thinking about it as a way to create actual life.  That's how I would feel.  I don't know, I don't know how to properly explain this.  If I were better with words or something...
Experiments?

Quote
Okay, sir, what's today's experiment?
Well, we caught us a couple of slaves earlier, and decided we were curious what was in their rectum.

Offline Borogove

  • Venture Conqueror
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • mimsy: adj. - flimsy and miserable :(
    • View Profile
    • Meyermike.com
Re: The Potential of Spore
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2005, 10:29:36 am »
(off-topic but something I tend to get fired up about)  :)
And also that there are already too many "platforms" for games. (a little off topic) It seems totally insane that I should be buying multiple systems to play the games I want, when they could work just as well on any one of my consoles/computers, there aren't 4 kinds of CDs that each require a different company's player...

Back on track tho,
From the developer/publisher-other-than-EA side, I'd want to make a game that I can point to and yell, "We did that"! And not have it part of an EA product-"if you do this and this you can get to the FPS add-on we did".

Now I'm going to contradict myself :) The concept of the free market is that competing companies are forced to make better games to attract companies. If there was only one game system, they would never bother making innovative games, because they know that you can't go anywhere else to get games - they'd just churn out crap and you'd have no choice but to play what they give you (although, they'd still have to compete with television, movies, books, comics and outdoor activities, of course)

So there would be a danger if Spore were the only game - they could very easily say "we're the only game out there people play, so let's be lazy and give them more crap to buy."

But do you really think an innovative thinker like Will Wright would be content just sitting back and churning out crap and raking in the dough? Sure, EA would, but not Will, or me, or any of the other really creative types who want to see MORE than just profits. Which is why maybe my idea should NOT be implemented until it can be done so outside of a too-big-for-its-own-good corporation like EA.


Well, I'm looking at the games business when compared to music and movies.  When I pick up a CD or DVD I don't have to worry about which type of player it is for.  I realize I'm glossing over a lot of the differences between the mediums.  Now to stretch the application of my analogy, musicians don't have to get the ok of cd player manufacturers before getting published, they don't have 3 different formats they have to "port" their songs to, and I don't have to worry about which one is going to get the best music made for it when I go buy a CD player.  The common format doesn't stifle competition in the music/movies and it doesn't stop competition in the hardware to play them. 

MS, Sony and Nintendo could do gamers and developers a big favor someday by deciding on a common format.  Never gonna happen, but just think where we'd be if there were three incompatible types of TV for years and years.  Or if, say Paramount, Disney, and Warner Bros. all each required different types of movie disks/cassettes.

Maybe we'll see cross-platform middleware make this a non-issue. *looks for the shrug emoticon...*
Use those talents you have. You will make it. You will give joy to the world. Take this tip from nature: The woods would be a very silent place if no birds sang except those who sang best.
-- Bernard Meltzer

Check out my games:  http://www.meyermike.com