Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 22

Is the introduction a sales pitch?

To me the 2nd part of the 2nd paragraph almost sounds like a sales pitch. "Spore is also available for direct download from Electronic Arts.[8] A special edition game, Spore: Galactic Edition, includes, in addition to the game, a "Making of Spore" DVD video, "How to Build a Better Being" DVD video by National Geographic Channel, "The Art of Spore" hardback mini-book, a fold-out Spore poster and a 97-page Galactic Handbook published by Prima Games.[9]" Does all this info about buying the game online or in a deluxe pack really belong in the introduction? Heck I don't think its even notable enought to make it in the article at all. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a buyers guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.128.94 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little like one, but it is notable that a 'deluxe edition' is available. Perhaps the description should be more simplistic. It looks like it was copyvio'd from the official page. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line 01:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Piracy

Stop including items about piracy, because it's not notable - EVERY game gets pirated. JAF1970 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes its true every game gets pirated but some games, like Spore, uses unusual anti-piracy methods like EA chose to use with spore, limiting installations and so on, therefore the fact that Spore is pirated is Notable, and should be included. - Fantact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.4.44 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SecuROM is not "unusual" anti-piracy method. It's a software like any other. It's no more notable than other DRM like StarForce. Are we going to mention in every game article when a pirate cracks StarForce? JAF1970 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Games getting pirated despite DRM, that's notable in the DRM article maybe... not here. --TheSeer (Talkˑ

Contribs) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's notable for the SecuROM article. However, unless Electronic Arts actually changes DRM or makes a huge fuss about it, it's not notable. JAF1970 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It is notable because the game isn't released yet. It's like when Source engine code got leaked. --Xjk238j (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Every single PC game is pirated before release. Spore is no different. The Source engine leak is completely different, it was a work in progress, nowhere near being finished. Spore was pirated a few days before it's release. Not notable in the slightest. Fin©™ 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So what if it was pirated a few days before it was released. Many games have been pirated many weeks before they had been released. Skele (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If the DRM of this particular game itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the article, so should the failure of it be. By the statements of those opposing mentioning piracy, failure of DRM isn't noticable because it happens to all DRM. By that logic, this particular DRM isn't noticable itself, since practically all games have DRM. If we're talking about a type of DRM that is extraordinary in some way, the failure of it would, by definition, by extraordinary too.
The sources make it notable. If the reliable sources don't talk about the piracy, we don't talk about it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this source notable enough for you? Spore's Piracy Problem - Forbes.com. Notable exerpts include:
Electronic Arts (nasdaq: ERTS - news - people ) had hoped to limit users to installing the game only three times through its use of digital rights management software, or DRM. But not only have those constraints failed, says Garland [Big Champagne Chief Executive Eric Garland], they may have inadvertently spurred the pirates on.
On several top file-sharing sites, "Spore"'s most downloaded BitTorrent "tracker"--a file that maps which users had the game available for downloading--also included step-by-step instructions for how to disassemble the copy protections, along with a set of numerical keys for breaking the software's encryption. For many users, that made the pirated version more appealing than the legitimate one.
DRM only limits the ability of consumers who wouldn't typically pirate media to make copies or share it with friends and family, agrees Big Champagne's Garland. But because encryption is so easily broken by savvier--and more morally flexible--users, it does little to stop the flood of intellectual property pirated over the Internet, he contends.
"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better," he says. "It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."
Forbes.com is about as reliable a source as one could ever find. If they're reporting on piracy and, ostensibly, the failure of SecuROM's DRM model to protect Spore and even provoke greater levels of piracy; I'd say that makes this subject notable. SecuROM is a collosal failure and the experts are talking about it; by the logic above, it looks like we get to talk about it as well after all. Braidedheadman (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While forbes is a reliable source, those little excerpts show some pretty limited understanding on their part, and frankly its downright inaccurate. also included step-by-step instructions for how to disassemble the copy protections, along with a set of numerical keys for breaking the software's encryption. This is infact not remotely what the pirated version includes. It includes an already cracked exe and keys to allow the game to install, not instructions for dissembling the copy protection or breaking "encryption".--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what your motives are for demanding reliable sources and then taking a defensive stance when one finally shows up. But if you are going to criticize Forbes' coverage of the material and claim that their understanding of the situation is "limited" or "frankly downright inaccurate", kindly practice what you preach and state YOUR sources. Also, let's not stand on semantics here, as that only confuses the issue; while the documents included in the torrent may not teach "Piracy & Homemade Cracks 101", they do provide instructions for removing that game's specific DRM software using the tools provided in the torrent package.Braidedheadman (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The motives are to ensure all material in the article complies with WP:V far too often people want to use wikipedia as a soapbox to make some point or grind an axe because of some issue they have with the subject. At some point someone mentioned there was encouragement on the part of a couple different forums for people to go out and slam spore for DRM issues. Wikipedia is a natural extension of that, which means editors have to scrutinize edits and sources even more closely than normal. As for Forbes being a reliable source, newspapers are not always considered a reliable source or some things. For example medical articles (especially on medical studies) don't consider the papers reliable as they often exaggerate or outright mislead readers about various aspects of these studies. Forbes may establish notability of the subject, but given their clear misunderstanding of subject in this article, I would be cautious about using it as a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I can respect that. However, you have once again indicated that the article has shown "a clear misunderstanding of the subject" without stating what exactly, if anything, might be misunderstood and have neglected to show documentation of your own to support your claim. It's one thing to say that people can't make Claim_X where Document_X doesn't meet with Wikipedia's WP:LOP or where Claim_Y based on CommonKnowledge_Y hasn't been substantiated by a reputable source (WP:V vs WP:The Truth - that essay is a hoot, lol :p) and is, therefore, inadmissible as I have noticed you have often done in a number of places on this talk page. It's quite another to assert that the material covered in a document from a reputable source is unreliable without supporting documents of like kind, grade, and quality. Double standards aren't going to work too well here. Or are you suggesting that we need another reputable source with expert opinion to establish the reliability of the Forbes article? Finally, and this may be a little pedantic of me but, Forbes is not a newspaper. Braidedheadman (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Evaluating sources is different than including material in the article. In this case Forbes commenting on the pirated version on the internet has opened the door to a primary source. I'm sure you can easily compare the primary source and the Forbes article to decide whether or not you feel they've correctly portrayed what is available. The article can still be used as citation. I simply said caution should be used in citing specific facts from the article. It can still be used to cite notability of that aspect of the subject, other claims should be taken with a grain of salt. We don't blindly include information from a reliable source if there is any doubt about it. Like the medical studies I pointed out above. If you can compare forbes to the primary source, and feel that what they wrote accurately describes the situation, then feel free to use the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Forbes should be notable enough, but stick with what the article says; don't draw any conclusions or make any interpretations. 'ostensibly, the failure of secuROM' is making an interpretation on what the article says and would not be a legitimate addition to the article. Best to be cautious about contentious topics. Dp76764 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to say that we can safely conclude that SecuROM's software is a stunning success? Whatever the case, I was not inferring any personal conclusions or interpretations of any kind. On the contrary, the jury is in, ladies and gentlemen, and the verdict has been delivered. Forbes went to the experts and they concluded - quite naturally in my opinion - that Spore's DRM has indeed failed to protect its assets from piracy. Read the article. By quoting them or choosing different words to deliver the same message, we aren't drawing any conclusions that haven't already been made by those who are both qualified and in a position to make those sorts of conclusions already. This is neither personal opinion nor original research; these are facts straight from the mouths of experts in their respective fields and delivered to us by a reputable source. Indeed, I would suggest that the only ones drawing conclusions here are those who now feel, for whatever reason, threatened by this news. As Crossmr said, it's fine to include the content provided by 3rd party expert opinions.Braidedheadman (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes thats right, we do have to be careful in the words we chose though as the alternative words. While some words might have similar meanings, they can in practice mean vastly different things. A puddle and a lake are both bodies of water, but one is of a magnitude far larger.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • We can't make conclusions or interpret on our own. However if 3rd party sources do it , then it is fine for us to include it. We're just including what the reliable sources have said in this case. There is no problem there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Source/Half-Life 2 was a major story because HL2 wasn't even half-finished, Source engine was completely new. JAF1970 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The DRM has made Spore the most pirated game ever. Go EA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.66.45 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

92% of 2100 Amazon reviews: one star

Just thought I'd point out the poor reviews it's accumulating on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4 -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • That's what happens when there's a grassroots campaign to raise an issue. May become notable if it breaks a record for 'most negative reviews solely for the purpose garnering attention' and gets reported on by Verifiable and reliable sources. Dp76764 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • with all due respect, do you have any proof that the amazon score is solely a result of people trying "garner attention" and whether they don't just hate the game? Check the metacritic user reviews and they're not too different. Whether it's a knee jerk reaction or not a lot of people didn't like this game. Also the current "Reception" section doesn't illustrate this at all, just states positive reviews. 86.134.17.137 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, 'user reviews' aren't something that can (or should) be considered for a Wikipedia article. As for Amazon, if you read the reviews, it's pretty clear that it's a campaign (thus seeking attention) against the DRM solution used (I don't disagree with them, but this doesn't mean we can include this in the article yet). Dp76764 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the other hand, the game is currently the best-selling game on Amazon.com. Gary King (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It only becomes notable if a reliable source reports on it and gives it coverage. Trying to interpret it is original research.--Crossmr (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been getting quite a bit of coverage. Just google "spore drm" and you will get quite a few sites that have been covering it 65.12.159.223 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 65.12.159.223, here's just a small list of notable sources referencing it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-gamers-fight-back-against-lackluster-spore-gameplay-bad-drm.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/amazon-users-slam-spore-drm
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2329934,00.asp
Dark dude (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
4chan and GameFAQs seem to be going off a lot at the game regarding it being overhyped, there isn't much controversy over the DRM any more. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line 05:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought i'd point out that Canada.com has, albeit minor, coverage of the amazon.com 1 star ratings... "Canada.com Games is the premiere source of video game news in Canada. The site is edited by Alex Blonski." - As far as reporting the event and giving it coverage, this source may help. -- "http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/gamesnews/archive/2008/09/08/drm-protesters-sink-spore-reviews.aspx" (also, quite sorry if I did not post this properly or in the correct spot, quite new at this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.226.158 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The BBC has picked up this story, it should be added to the DRM section of the main page as a citation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7604405.stm Kodath (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the 'reception' segment at the beginning of this article may be looking for sources that pop up here, and vice versa, on user reception for more than just DRM. Scribblette (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Basis

This entire section, while fairly well written and fairly well researched, has no business being in this article. Theoretical discussions of genetic evolution algorithms and the popularity of those in videogaming has little to do with this game, at least in the scope of a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.161.34 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was well written and interesting, but I think the entire section could be summed up by saying "Its a game and they took some scientific 'leaps' to make it playable". It happens all the time. If a movie is based on a true story, you would expect there are changes and leaps made for the sake of narrative. Also true for games based on science, they had to gloss over a few things for the sake of it being a game. I don't think its inclusion makes it a better article.198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That text is even full of mistakes as he thinks DNA is the parts you get in the game when the DNA is what you get from food in the game and parts are what you get from other creatures and bones. It also sounds more of a rant of one individual and quite frankly it doesn't have any real meaning other than they claimed they are partly scientific when on his opinion they weren't at all. If he really thinks it doesn't have even slight scientific basis then he is totally mistaken as there is several scientific theories used. Also the game never stated it was totally scientificly accurate. The section is not needed and just makes the bio longer with information that can be said in one sentence. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it from the other article as well. it violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In case it comes in handy later, and because it is an intriguing bit of work, this looks like it's the section in question. --Kizor 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, is it really fair to include the word "evolution" (as in "control the evolution of a species") in the lead? Frankly, I think that sends a bad message to less educated readers who don't know what the theory of evolution is. I have a real fear that spore is going to cause rather alot of damage to the scientific side of the evolution/ID war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as fair to use the word 'evolution' in Spore as it is to use 'World War II' in the game Day of Defeat. The topic matter is addressed, but I doubt anyone will believe evolution happens like it happens in spore any more than someone would believe that Omaha Beach was fought by two teams of 12 respawning combatants. Games take liberties with reality to make it fun, people should understand that. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I have heard people complaining this game as a work of intelligent design. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that there isn't any reasonable level of debate about WWII and its many facets. on the other hand, evolution is under attack and it is dishonest to mislead a public that by and large doesn't understand the theory into thinking that it occured in this manner. I'm just saying :) Playwrite (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC) It's dishonest to mislead the public into thinking that any evolution even occurs in this game. The lead needs to change, unless either a) someone has an actual reference for use of the word evolution or b) nobody can think of a better word. Leushenko (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

how about "development"? I think that makes more sense.

Actually, there ARE elements of evolution in the game, but neither of the 2 main principles (random mutation and survival of the fittest) is really present. At most one could say that Spore includes the basic idea of life developing from basic stages to extremely advanced ones. Unfortunately, it doesn't even handle that well, since sweeping changes frequently occur within a single generation. Playwrite (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, If no one objects I am going to change the word "evolution to "development" in the lead. I'll come back in 12 hours or so and do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

if the game claims evolution that is what we have to go with. To claim otherwise without reliable sources is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV--Crossmr (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be to difficult to find a reliable source questioning its relationship to evolution. would that violate any rules? (NOTE: someone changed the word, just to be clear that was NOT me)Playwrite (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find a source you can say that some reviewers/journalists dispute this usage. As for it being changed, evolution is still in the lead.--Crossmr (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Phase - Genesis Device II

So with only being able to use the device 42 times in this phase, do I then have to contact EA Customer support to have them reset my in-game use limit when it has been depleted? Will this be a standard procedure or will they do it on a case by case basis? Hehe :p (Bobbo9000 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, ask to speak to Steve.--12.21.161.34 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hahahaha. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought he told you to use it wisely. Therefore, you have broken the EULA on the Genesis Device and cannot claim another one. Good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.66.45 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

System Requirements?

Anyone know the exact specs you should have, since "PC/MAC" doesnt tell anyone much anything, other than it works on pc or mac. Things like OS[windows/mac os/linux], hardware and whatnot should be known 99bluefoxx (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?. There is sufficient information available in article. Click on "show" for more info.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for next GA review

Before this article goes for another GA review, the "Phases" needs to be trimmed drastically. It is far too long and detailed for an encyclopedic article on the game. It should follow the same guidelines as WP:PLOT. Gary King (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception

This section should be updated/changed. It should be noted that the game is being received terribly by consumers. Otherwise, this section is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.37.23 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If by terrible you mean that people are unhappy about the DRM, that is mentioned. I don't think any reliable sources have really talked about fan opinion of the game overall outside of that though.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Not the DRM but the game itself. Almost all of the user reviews you'll find are unfavorable.--210.4.37.23 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Until a reliable source covers that aspect we can't include it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The official Spore forums are full of it, as is the Metacritic user vote aggregate. The biggest issue complained about (regardless of shallow gameplay in earlier stages) is the intense frequency of eco-disasters & pirate attacks. See Arstechnica[1] for a sentiment similar to that of grumpy gamers, quotes included below. The listed reviews in reception do imply a more positive spin by excluding lower scoring reviews such as linked above, leaving one hoping EA isn't interfering with the wiki. 58.179.224.144 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Aggregates are used in the article. As stated before, forums, user reviews, etc all fail WP:V and can't be used in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, crap, I didn't use the cite properly, so you couldn't see the link I was referring to with the quotes. Arstechnica isn't a user review/forum, it's a proper game review by a regular tech site, valid (AFAIK) as much as any other review on here, without being twisted for positive spin on the game's failings. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/spore-review.ars
"Spore had begun to feel like the world's largest kiddie pool: five miles wide and two feet deep."
"...the more frequent and annoying the attacks and eco-disasters became on my inhabited worlds; I couldn't go a few minutes without someone calling for help"
"Imagine an expansion pack release for each phase, adding in the depth that's sorely missing. It's not a fun thought." 58.179.224.144 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The video game project hasn't evaluated arstechnica Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources, but I know its a really popular site. The only thing that gives me pause about the site is their user agreement THE WEBSITE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND THE SERVICE PROVIDER, ITS AFFILIATES AND ITS THIRD PARTY SERVICE PROVIDERS HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, its a fairly standard user agreement on a lot of sites, but one thing people on wikipedia typically look for in evaluating a site is an assertion that they stand behind what they've written. Probably the site is fine, you might dig around WP:RS and the RS noticeboard to see if there was any conclusions drawn about using Ars as a reliable source. So you can source from that, but I don't think it speaks to any user opinion.--Crossmr (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. IGN and CBS Interactive (for GameSpot) state pretty much the same thing. THE IGN PARTIES MAKE NO WARRANTY THAT... THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE. So it should be fine to source in thar regards. But like you said, I realize it can be quoted for stating the failings, but alas not a way to speak to user opinion. Heck, though, what would? A reputable site saying "Hey, the forums look angry, look at that user score in metacritic and these common complaints"? It winds up being the same base source. So many of the user complaints on Amazon, which were noted here, are more than about just DRM. For that matter, has anyone referred to Amazon deleting all the negative Spore reviews on Friday? I'd update the wiki, but I'd rather someone less likely to be reverted do it. :/ Scribblette (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in)
As I said fairly typical disclaimer, so you have to look at the site beyond that. As for citing it, yes. A reliable source needs to write an article about it. It happens sometimes, but not that often. Unless they do, you can't cite it. Remember user forums are generally only a tiny fraction of the actual users so even if it looks like a lot of upset people those couple thousand are only a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of users.--Crossmr (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Those couple of thousands from forums everywhere is a great representation of these hundreds of thousands. Are you saying that it's purely coincidental that these couple of thousands of users from all over the world just happen to think that spore is bad? --210.4.37.23 (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, since there was talk it was started by some forums who encouraged users to go and do it. There is a reason these aren't considered reliable. No one can verify them for accuracy as such they can't be included in the article themselves.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel the chart detailing scores from gaming review websites does not cover some of the lower scoring reviews as much as it does the higher scoring reviews. An aggregate site such as metacritic shows plenty of reviews around the level of 70% from reliable sources, however these are not mentioned in the chart. I feel this gives the impression that the game was held to higher acclaim then it actually was. What are your views on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.181.220 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It has a Metacritic score of 85, what more do you want? If you mention specific reviews at 70%, you'll have to also mention specific reviews at a higher score. (note: user submitted scores and review are NOT applicable) Dp76764 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This game is a really big dissapointment. My brother bought it for my birthday, me thinking that the game was going to be like they had promised, in like, every video made by Maxis. I couldn't believe how pathetically simple it was. Maybe when Wright was going to release he was having delusions thinking that he was playing "sim half-a*s a good game". Horrible. Boring, short, and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.247.28 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've heard from almost everyone who plays it, on or offline, and is why I wanted to find some way to report what users think on here, rather than just critics. If you find a reputable source that points out user backlash, we'd love to hear about it - problem is any results on such for Spore are drowned in all the DRM complaints! Couldn't care less about DRM if the game was actually good enough. Scribblette (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

the village voice gave the game a 6 out of 10:

For the record: Spore isn’t a “life-simulator”, and certainly doesn’t simulate evolution. Despite whatever Wright initially intended or EA’s marketing might have you believe, there’s little to Spore that’s any more “evolutionary” than creating a Mii with Nintendo’s Wii, modifying the paint and tires of a car in Forza 2, or making an exact replica of Kentucky Fried Chicken in The Sims; Spore is, in essence, a customization program, bundled with the software that lets you share your work. It’s an interesting product and impressive in its own rite, but not nearly as ambitious as touted – and most damningly, it doesn’t meet the high standard set by Wright’s previous efforts in terms of gameplay design, since so much of Spore feels borrowed from other games.

surely the village voice can be used as a reputable source. does this work for those who were concerned about ars technica? Illegalyouth (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/spore-review.ars
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spore_(2008_video_game)/Archive_18&oldid=1137199095"