Comments on: USA Today wins worst headline for the week

By: JSug

JSug — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:13:21 +0000

People are reading way too much into this game. It’s a GAME. It’s not about endorsing any particular socio-political agenda. It’s supposed to be FUN.

But if you really want to know where Will Wright lands on these issues, just take a look at some of his earlier games. After the success of Sim City, he went on to create Sim Earth and Sim Life, which were both fairly sophisticated simulations of the effects of environmental pressures on evolution. Sim Earth was more high level, while Sim Life actually simulated each creature at the genetic level by tracking inherited traits and mutations, and their effects on how it interacted with the environment. Very cool, but not nearly as much fun, or as successful, as his better known titles. In fact, they were probably intended to be more educational in nature.

By: darth_borehd

darth_borehd — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:52:47 +0000

The game game has about 2,000 negative reviews on Amazon and only about 100 positive reviews. Most people fault it for a ridiculously harsh DRM rootkit copy protection scheme, but a large number also claim the game is more about creating cute critters than any serious exploration of biology.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:34:24 +0000

This game is all about intelligent design. Creatures are designed by you, the gamer, who presumably is intelligent. Features and attributes of your creatures are selected, sculpted, moulded into the form which you see fit. It has nothing to do with Natural Selection. They made this decision very deliberate, because doing any different would not have produced an interactive, playable game. So, the title of the article is probably quite apt, not that I like either the title or the way the game has “evolved” from initial conception.

As for Will Wright’s statements that the game “is definitely not a creationist universe”, it is rather unfortunate, for anyone who knows the controversy should realize that THERE IS NO distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism, and his game is a game of Intelligent Design, therefore it most definitely IS a creationist universe.

By: A.Sidorov

A.Sidorov — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:19:02 +0000

I don’t think Spore wants to be a creationist/ID game. In most computer games, things don’t just evolve naturally, unlike the real world, so there has to be intelligence behind the evolution in the game world because everything is programmed. That’s what people have to realize on their own – that games and real life are not the same thing.

By: Quiet Desperation

Quiet Desperation — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:44:31 +0000

Bind = Bond

Der

By: Quiet Desperation

Quiet Desperation — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:44:15 +0000

Does that mean D&D is inspired by ID? As Dungeonmaster, I get to design everything, roll the dice, and decide your fate at every step.

I always saw a D&D Dungeonmaster as more of James Bind super villain.

“Do you expect us to fight the Dragon Of Eternity to obtain the Jewel Of Fluffy Goodness?”

“No, Mr. Elf Warrior. I expect you to die!”

By: Pouria

Pouria — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:57:07 +0000

As Jolly Blogger said, you don’t do small changes, and can completly redesign your creature after every “mating”, which to me was quite boring. I’d much rather it have given the opportunity to only make small changes, and maybe even narrow the changes to what your gameplay allowed. As in, I added spikes to the tail of my cell/watercreature, and used it to attack other creatures, the game would then allow me to make more modifications on that part, more mobility etc etc, as that’s what I used to most.
That would’ve been much more fun, actually seeing your creature evolve, with your help, but with alot of emphasis on how you used your limbs etc. Would be more evolution like…

All in all, I’m quite dissapointed with the game overall, expected more, then again, only played about 5 minutes in the second stage so far.