A great article from a Spore dev about what went wrong with the game.
"The initial concept – of a game in which the player evolves a species from cellular development to galactic dominion – generated an immense amount of hype, which the game struggled to fulfill upon its 2008 release. Spore received middling reviews from the gaming press, who found the gameplay weak and unfocused, and harsh criticism from the scientific press, who felt tricked by the promise of a game built from real science."
This is my first submission, and probably the last for awhile until I get the hang of this place. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong here.
Thanks for sharing this! I followed that game for YEARS and, as you can imagine, was gutted when it finally came out. I debated for a further couple of years on the forums and eventually let go of the game that was supposed to be a revolution in modern video game design. It's nice to finally see a true explanation of what was going on behind the scenes, and from someone credible. It's sad that it was Will Wrights latest (and probably last) game he's developed. It's also insane that no other game has come close to touching the games INITIAL theme of scientifically-accurate evolution and gameplay depth - just LOOK at the envisioned space stage back in '05 - http://youtu.be/T8dvMDFOFnA?t=20m20s Can you imagine what could be developed today? 8 years later? With not 1 single game that comes close to the overall idea? A true testament of WW's creative mindset and risk-taking.
The phrase "Jack of all trades, King of none" springs to mind. Also "biting off more than you can chew". It was more gutting because the cell stage was great, position of cilia and spikes directly affected gameplay and it really felt like I was evolving a creature. The rest of the game was so shallow in comparison. The cookie-cutter creature add-ons were the worst, doesn't matter how you configured your body plan, buy the expensive feet and suddenly you could run fast. You build Jabba the Hutt but slap some tiny wings on and suddenly you can fly. I can barely even bare thinking about the abysmal city stage. The technology they created really is completely amazing, even after the disappointment. The advances in procedural technology, everything from randomised planets to animation generation, was incredible. They just couldn't pull it together into a fun game. The author's comment that they should have restricted the scope to cellular and creature stages, and applied focus to that smaller subset, I can't help but think that would have been amazing, even if you never got the interstellar stuff (which quickly became a chore to play anyway, defending planets etc). Even if it were just cellular creatures, with the end-game being a small fish or something, it could have had much more depth. More than anything, it taught me that hype can easily get out of control, and it's important to manage player expectations as it is to pump them up for something amazing or revolutionary. It was such a profound lesson (I spent AU$110 on the galactic edition - shudder) that I'm very wary of the recent talk of HL3. I won't buy into any kind of hype for anything until I've read a dozen reviews to back it up after release. Anyway, this article brought up many bad memories, hence the ranting.