Topic: Is spore too cartoony?

[Lurker28]

I'm aware that it's my opinion, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm expressing my opinion that spore looks too cartoony. As for the rest of what you said, I did say in one of my posts that spore is ahead of its time still. I still don't think technology is quite at the point where we can do this game justice yet, and I'd be willing to wait. I'm a patient man.

LoL, thank god you do not work in the gaming business or we would never have games like Starcraft. I wonder if they said "You Can't Do RTS Justice" When Westwood Studios released Dune or when Blizzard release Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

There we be no RTS games today if it wasn't for those two companies feeding off each other. Those two games in the early to mid 90's were very controversial and were both critically acclaimed games.

Will took some huge steps forward to create this game, and he will do Spore justice. However, there we be other developers that will try to copy or take from his game and make something new from it. Also, Spore 2 might be released in 5-8 years down the road which will be able to do more. By saying they can not do it justice limits yourself, it seems as if you are saying "Why do it, if you can not live up to my expectations."

[Dekadin]

I mean seriously guys, you are telling me those are hyper realistic or more realistic textures then now? They are bland, the ground texture is blurry as all hell, it looks washed out...the damn grass looks like it has been painted on by a 3 year old, very simple lines. It is a little "dirtier" because they are in more of an arid desert area on the planet. The only thing that has a better texture than that of which I have seen in the previous spore videos might be the hut, which looks still more like a world of warcraft texture....nothing realistic AT ALL.

Yeah, that grass looks terrible, but for some reason I like the look of those creatures a little more than what I've seen recently. Could just be the quality of the pictures though, I'm not sure. They certainly look fantastic, but I think they look a little more... believable, with the proportions and the way the different parts of the body flow into one another. The tail looks a little off though... Also I'm fine with the hut, that doesn't bother me.

Besides, the issue isn't with the way it looked. When I first saw these, I assumed you'd be able to create less wacky creatures if you wanted to. Will did say you could recreate real world animals if you wanted, implying realism could be done. Since then they've essentially said you can't.

And hey I just realized, those trees in the background are different from the trees in all the other videos/pictures/whatever...

[WhiteWolf7]

Besides, the issue isn't with the way it looked. When I first saw these, I assumed you'd be able to create less wacky creatures if you wanted to. Will did say you could recreate real world animals if you wanted, implying realism could be done. Since then they've essentially said you can't.

They never said you cant. They only said they decided on a more cartoony look because its easier to do. You can make realistic looking creatures..have you seen the editers and the creatures that spawned from them?. Tell me what exactly is stopping you?. The ones that look wacky look that way not because of a cartooney look but because thats the way they were made

When they said they decided on cartoony i think they meant cartoony like thier other games as opposed to what that new dog looks like in fable 2.

[Fatalfist]

the funny thing is that when they realy decided to have more of a cartoony aspect, that it wasnt a few months ago they already decided that years ago.

[helio-G]

Spore is as cartoony or Realistic as you want it to be. Remember you have options. For me, its going to be realistic.

[Tavenknaughtlin]

You know they said they have the Advanced Editor in which you can put more detail in your creature. I'm almost 100% sure that how long you take on your creature truly determines how cartoony it looks.

And only the people who have actually used the editor can honestly talk about what it can or can not do, as they are the only ones with first hand knowledge. Anyone else is just speculating.

[Bona Fide Supraman]

Will the pollinated content be able to see which creatures are realistic and which aren't?

Because it's all very well making a realistic creature, but if you then go into the world and it's full of garishly coloured things with big eyes, you'd be slightly annoyed

[Lurker28]

Will the pollinated content be able to see which creatures are realistic and which aren't?

Because it's all very well making a realistic creature, but if you then go into the world and it's full of garishly coloured things with big eyes, you'd be slightly annoyed

I believe that is the fun of exploring other planets, to see what other people have created. However, I think I remember will saying that "your" planet will be pollinated with stuff that fits your style. The computer will try to come up with stuff to match not just your building style, but also your creature style as well, so your creature or other creatures do not look out of place on your planet.

[ChristianSkunk]

Will the pollinated content be able to see which creatures are realistic and which aren't?

Because it's all very well making a realistic creature, but if you then go into the world and it's full of garishly coloured things with big eyes, you'd be slightly annoyed

I believe that is the fun of exploring other planets, to see what other people have created. However, I think I remember will saying that "your" planet will be pollinated with stuff that fits your style. The computer will try to come up with stuff to match not just your building style, but also your creature style as well, so your creature or other creatures do not look out of place on your planet.

But how will an automatic system be able to tell if it's cartoony or not?  You could try to determine it by parts, coloring and patterns, but I'm sure I could take something classified as realistic and turn it cartoony.  I doubt that they could accurately determine that, but perhaps they could rely on the creator to mark it appropriately via checkboxes or something?  I suppose it's possible, I just don't see it working too well.  What would you do?  Compare the size of the eyes to the body?  Certain combinations of colors and patterns?  With the freedom you have in sizing and angling parts, it'd have to be very complicated and I'd rather them spend time on stuff I care about.   It could be that the more interesting creatures would be classified as cartoony, even if they're highly realistic (for an imaginary alien creature).  And before someone suggests it, I also doubt they'd pay people to sit around and judge user created creatures submitted to the database.  Seems like a huge waste.  This made me think of a previous thread about copyrighted/sexual creatures.  The best solution in that thread was to rely on the users to vote or report inappropriate creations.

[Lurker28]

You say that, yet we have some evidence that suggest differently. Will has even said when using the search tool to find new cities, vehicles, etch made by the players, the computer will learn the way you like to make things...so technically the technology is right there, I do not see how it is to implement something like that. And no, it might not be a perfect match but at least it will help.

[ChristianSkunk]

You say that, yet we have some evidence that suggest differently. Will has even said when using the search tool to find new cities, vehicles, etch made by the players, the computer will learn the way you like to make things...so technically the technology is right there, I do not see how it is to implement something like that. And no, it might not be a perfect match but at least it will help.

Will said...  And yes, I'm the one who often says 'You must trust in The Will!'  The problem is you can't just say find similar things, you have to tell it how to judge what's similar.  Now, Amazon and similar sites do something like that with their suggestions, but they have it easy because everything's put into neat catagories and they can go by the 'people who bought this also bought these' things.  Eh.  It doesn't really matter.  We'll find out when we get the game.  I'd just prefer a rating system and worry that they would waste time trying to get a good system to judge that really doesn't work anyway.  It's like what he and Brian Eno talked about in their presentation about music...  As of yet there's no formula to figuring out what would be considered good.  Given all the variations they appear to be allowing in the editors, I'd think they'd have the same problem.  Also, buildings might be easier if parts were arranged according to architecture type, so a building with mostly Victorian pieces would be labed as Victorian, for example.  But if given the freedom with the body they promise, you could probably use the same parts but come up with a completely different creature depending on the shape of the body and where those parts are placed.

[SpaceOddity]

Most probably it's based on statistics. The game stores what you keep and what you reject. It will try to match the parameters of the things that you have kept in the next batch of items it will offer you. It will be a long term thing. The more selections you make, the better it will work. Personally I'm glad that you can browse also, as I'm am fickle, and need diversity in my game.

[ChristianSkunk]

Most probably it's based on statistics. The game stores what you keep and what you reject. It will try to match the parameters of the things that you have kept in the next batch of items it will offer you. It will be a long term thing. The more selections you make, the better it will work. Personally I'm glad that you can browse also, as I'm am fickle, and need diversity in my game.

Yeah I thought of that too, and I don't think it'd be that difficult to program.  But as that last part suggests you also thought, it could lead to a less diverse universe...  There'd hopefully still be variation, but it could result in all similar sized, or limbed, or colored creatures.  And even then it might not weed out creatures that you would consider cartoony (that's the issue there, really;  Cartoony is in the eye of the beholder).

[ChristianSkunk]

The database will probably not classify objects as cartoony or realistic... but will group objects that have been dismissed or favored by multiple people, and so if your preferences are similar to for instance Hydro's then stuff Hydro liked (that you haven't seen) would probably be headed your way.  Like online product suggestions based on previous purchase history.

That sounds similar to what I said earlier.   It should be interesting at first when it has little or only developer preferences to judge with.

[Protoavis]

I mean seriously guys, you are telling me those are hyper realistic or more realistic textures then now?

it's never been an issue about hyper realistic graphics if you had managed to comprehend what people have been saying.