Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game)

OK, I'm of two minds on this - I could go either way. Anyone want to vote on whether to use Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game). I'm leaning towards the latter, but could go either way. JAF1970 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking (2008 video game) for consistency, and redirect (video game) to it; then change the hatnote to "Spore (video game) redirects here; for the 1987 video game..." Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (video game) as a disamb? Sounds good. JAF1970 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game) seems better to me (for the same reason stated by Danisman). Pseudoserpent (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dansiman ment that Spore (video game) would be redirected to Spore (2008 video game) and then put the note that for the 1987 Commandore 64 game go (the link to the 1987 game). There is no need to make Spore (video game) page to disambiguation page. You can list both games on Spore disambiguation page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be more accurate to call it Spore (2012 video game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.190.202 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Full summary of my proposal:

Have Spore (video game) redirect to Spore (2008 video game) (this article's new title).
Place hatnote at the top of this article, informing visitors of the other two games with the same name. This code would do it:
{{subst:Redirect6/sandbox|Spore (video game)|the Commodore 64 game|Spore (1987 video game)|the MS-DOS game|Spore (1991 video game)}}

which produces:
All three games can then be listed on Spore (disambiguation).

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm for the status quo, considering that Spore (1987 video game) and Spore (1991 video game) look like marginally notable games to me, while Spore is one of the most hyped games in recent gaming history. I'm pretty sure that 99,9% of all people will associate "Spore" and "video game" with this game, and not the other two. --Conti|✉ 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Spore (video game) would be better as a disambig page. Besides, when people enter "Spore" into Wiki, they get spore, not the game anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? We usually don't create disambiguation pages when one term is quite clearly the most popular. And when it comes to video games, this game beats the other two hands down. --Conti|✉ 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a Spore disambig anyway. And as I just say, when people enter "Spore", they don't get Spore (video game) anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: What would people expect when they click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(video_game), or Spore (video game)? If the answer is "Some would expect to see this game called Spore, some would expect to see that game called Spore", we should have a disambiguation page. If the answer is "Nearly everyone would expect to see this game called Spore", then this game called Spore should be at Spore (video game). That's how we disambiguate pages (or not) usually. --Conti|✉ 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm would it do to say Spore (2008 video game)? No one enters Spore (video game) anyway. And are people going to be confused if they google and get Spore (2008 video game)? JAF1970 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I type Spore (video game). :-p Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm would it do to keep the things as they are? I just don't see much of a reason to change things, but in the end it's no biggie either way. --Conti|✉ 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See Gumshoe for a great example of a redirect to the most popular term, with a hatnote to more obsure terms. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Dansiman's proposal. I think it addresses the issue of the other games without creating problems for the main more notable game.Nanobri (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And the other games that are called spore should't be blocked out. So I'd also go for Dansiman's proposal. Skele (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, that's 4 for, 1 against. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move, since consensus appears to have been reached here. I updated the hatnote and am now updating incoming redirects and so forth. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I turned Spore (video game) into a disambiguation page. JAF1970 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine too. I've updated all the redirects to (video game) to now redirect to (2008 video game), and the fair use rationales for all images currently on the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to fix these links, and these redirects (Well, most of them, anyways). --Conti|✉ 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with those redirects? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Most should redirect to Spore (video game), since that's a disambiguation page now. I fixed those now, anyhow. The links still need to be done, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should Spore (video game) be a disambig instead of a redirect, when there seems to be a consensus that when someone is talking about a video game called Spore, it's almost always going to be the 2008 version? Making Spore (video game) a disambig totally ignores the logic of Dansiman's proposal above. Propaniac (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see a reason to move this article to Spore (2008 video game) in the first place. Making Spore (video game) a disambiguation page just makes sense then, tho, otherwise the move would've been pretty pointless, wouldn't it? --Conti|✉ 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature Creator Easter Egg

Not sure if this should go into the article or not, but if from the main menu of the creature editor, you click on "View galaxy" (it's between and slightly above the edit and create buttons), you are taken to a more zoomed out view of the galaxy that you can manipulate the same way as the creature editor dais. If you spin the galaxy very quickly, Will Wright's head emerges from it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not relevent. JAF1970 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I foresee the possibility of people randomly adding it in, thinking they are the first to tell Wikipedia about it because they don't see it. If that happens I think it'd probably be better to put a well written bit about it to prevent stuff like "OOO aand Willz head cOmEs if you do TH1S!!!1!" Nanobri (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) It's strategy guide stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

Let's try to add some more details about game play and game dynamics. for example, one Windows Games magazine article mentioned what happens if a species fails; the player reverts to the previous level, or an intermediate point. how is "failure" defined? what are some of the impacts? Feel free to leave some replies here. also, let's try to write some more about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In cell and creature phase when your creature dies. You will start with the earlier generation of the creture so you lose the new edits made to the creature. In the other phases I think you will fail if you tribe is destroyed or your civilization is destroyed. That creature thing was mentioned by Will on some video anyway so it wasn't anything new. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New box is up

As Patrick promised, the new box art is up. I'll try to get a 256px version. JAF1970 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature Editor Picture

Seeing as the official editor has been released I think the picture should change to a screenshot of the official release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.155.75 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Besides, the Creature Creator box is at the editor (just click "show") JAF1970 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DS Version

If we're not going to have the DS version in the main platforms (Despite the fact that it is advertised by EA alongside the 'full' versions on PC and Mac), perhaps there should be a small section in the main article dealing with the DS version? PlasticFork (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So? What does that have to do anything? Spore is a franchise, and the DS version is Spore Creatures. JAF1970 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Still its not the same game as this. That game will be adventure based game where your creature is abducted to alien planet and then the story beguns. I would not say that game that doesn't have the same content than the PC and MAC versions can be said to be version of that game. Still the DS version is mentioned on the article, given short description and its also linked to its separate article as its separate game. Also sites can advertise spinoff games on the same site as the main game but it doesn't make the spinoff game version of the original game. Also to add that the DS version is not named "Spore" its named "Spore Creatures" and its content is not same as on the original game. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1000000

Worth mentioning that CC had 1 mill creatures uploaded in 1 week after release, or too trivia-ish? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned here at the end of the section. But I guess it could be added to this article as well. (RCX (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

The entire Creature Creator was moved to Development of Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive. Btw why must everything go to Development of Spore?. It seems to be getting smaller. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, the DoSpore article exists so people can banish edits they don't like to it. It should be merged with the main Spore article. KiTA (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think once the game comes out and everything stabalizes we ought to extremely trim down the development article and merge them. Until then this looks to be the best solution though. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Development of Spore exists because Spore is for the game, and Dev of Spore is for the long 4 year history of the game. Like it or not, 1,000,000 creatures created by the Spore Creature Creator has nothing - or extremely tangentially -- to do with the gameplay. Spore is for the game. Dev of Spore is for the development of how Spore came to be. (Have you actually read the Dev of Spore article? It's not a repository of trivia.) JAF1970 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore CC

I moved Spore Creature Creator to Development of Spore because it's more part of the marketing and development of Spore than the game itself. When the game is released, the Spore CC will be about as relevent as the Starmaker was to The Movies and the Facemaker was to The Sims 2. Besides, there was too much duplication of information, and stuff like sporn and the 1M creatures is more Spore's history than the game itself. JAF1970 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

basic game structure

I think I'm still missing some basic facts. This is an MMORPG. yet there are references to setting one's "difficulty level" and other details which work only in single-player games. I'm aware that this game will function as a single-player game in some phases, and as an MMORPG in other. I think we need to be clearer on this.

I know this is a basic function of the game which others here may already know about, and which I simply am personally not aware of. how does this work? do players simply play on their own, then upload their creations into the shared universe/server? or does all gameplay take place on the server. (I think I read a bit about this somewhere, but not sure.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's in "community" section. ok, I'm working to absorb this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved some sections around to reflect this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is that everyone plays their own game and things that you make get uploaded to everyone elses game. When they get uploaded, though, you lose all control over them. You could play the game without anyone else playing and never know the difference, since you never come in to direct contact with them. To try and make an analogy with another game you may be familiar with, let's say you're playing Sim City 4. You create a couple cities on the game. Those cities are sent to a server where they are downloaded to other people's regions instead of computer generated cities. It's a bit confusing at first but once you grasp the concept it's pretty simple. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an MMORPG, it's a massively SINGLE online game (not even RPG). Each player plays their own game as an individual, but content that they make gets used in other people's games. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you get reports on how your stuff is doing in other people's games (ie. how many people decided to blow up your species' planet from the face of the Earth. hehe) Not a forum, tho. JAF1970 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a final answer on aquatic creatures?

Ok, I though all of the spore creatures were terrestrial, but I saw what I believe to be a recent demo where the player was playing the creature phase underwater (His creature had fins and could swim pretty fast), then gave his creature 3 legs and walked out onto the land. The demo then went on to discuss the remaining phases of the game. The video was about 30 minutes long and I believe it was secretly leaked from a an apple store. Other highlights including the creatures jumping up and down with excitement whenever an item was purchased in the tribal stage and the player losing a war in the civilization stage but still skipping ahead to space. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no underwater phase, period. JAF1970 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the tidal pool phase, right? Or did that get changed? It still appears in the game summary. Chuy1530 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cell phase >< Underwater phase. JAF1970 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that you can build civilisations in bubbles underwater, I think it was in this article. Can we get a citation on this?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can have bubbled cities in an unhospitable environment (ie. vacuum of space). IT's not the same thing as living underwater. JAF1970 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The creature phase does give you the opportunity to have a creature that swims underwater but you can't go to tribal phase from there. And when you put leg/legs on the creature it goes to land. That was on the E3 2006 video and I think they wouldn't just leave it from the game because it's a pretty huge thing. Skele (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you should read the news as its many times stated that they dropped sea phase and made tidepool to go straight to land. If you would look some newer videos you would have seen and heard them saying that after tidepool your creature will come to land. Also you don't need legs to move on land so adding legs is not needed before you have already gone to land. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe you. That was the answer I needed. Skele (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this an advert?

ive quoted this from the article :

"The full version of the game is due to be released on September 5, 2008 in Europe,[3] and September 7, 2008 in North America and other territories.[4] Spore will also be available for direct download from Electronic Arts on September 7.[7] A special edition game, Spore: Galactic Edition, is priced at $79.99 USD, and will include 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 100-page Galactic Handbook.[8]"

couldnt this be considered an Advert, even if it is factual? Im new to discussing on wiki, but I always thought that encyclopedias should be factual in past tense. Surely future tense is an advert, no?Leafblade (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's slightly adverty, yup, however not everything can be discussed in the past tense as this game isn't even out for another couple of months! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 13:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gamespot wikia page?

Why does the Gamespot wikia page deserve its own blurb in the community section? Unless someone can clarify what separates the Gamespot page from all of the other fan sites, I'd like to remove its mention from the article Poobslag (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted

WTF? JAF1970 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE. What the heck just happened? What should we do now. let's start putting in complaints and Administrator's Noticeboard, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a case of speedy deletion. And I'm trying to incorporate new information from the GameSpy and GameSpot hands-on previews... JAF1970 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JAF, you're right. I agree. I have opened a deletion review in the following place:

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Spore_(2008_video_game). Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins you better give a better reason why it was deleted first without no reason. A serious offense by the admin. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. by the way, here are the log entries: click here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup i checked that when i knew the article was deleted. Jacoplane better explain. He misused admins tools.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't rush at this. I noticed that Jacoplane created (sic) "Spore (2008 video game" (see the lack of closing paren). He may have been trying to delete that. I did restore the page, assuming the deletion was a mistake. --MASEM 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, it looks like a simple mistake. Let's not jump to conclusions on Jaco. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still have doubts. If it was a mistake it is fine. Still it is better Jaco to explain it here. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't see any motivation he would have to delete the article. It isn't like this is an article who's existance is contested, and to my knowledge Jaco hasn't even had any arguments about it. Because of the other article (with the missing parenthesis) I strongly believe this is just a simple mistake. But yes, it would be nice to have Jaco come by and reassure us of that Chuy1530 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Chuy. To Steve and SkyWalker: assume good faith in the future. Admins are people too.-Wafulz (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wafulz. i agree with you. My comments here may have sounded indignant at first, but I tried to tone them down. anyway, thanks for your input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My only issue is that it came at the wrong possible time - there's a dozen Pre-E3 hands-on previews that have hot new info. JAF1970 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz, I except admin to be good faith. This is not the first time iam seeing an admin deleting an page by "mistake". --SkyWalker (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what that means. Go and settle down, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed this discussion until now. As I pointed out, this was just a dumb mistake, but apparently some people feel that I have some kind of ulterior motive for wanting to see the article deleted. Please note that as an admin I'm open to recall, so if anyone feels I'm not fit for the job feel free to nominate me for recall. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-9 16:15

I think the issue is over at this point. thanks for your open post anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article consolidation

Whew, a ton of new info with all the hands-on time at Pre-E3. Can someone give the article the once-over to make sure there's no duplication of data? Just merge similar items. JAF1970 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore box found

Found a large enough Spore box for the proper 256px. :p JAF1970 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that the final boxshort?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Patrick. Well, erm, the final FINAL box will have the actual rating and not RP. But that's it. JAF1970 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaked Info

This was originally unreleased information from the Creature Creator's files. http://spore.vg/dump/locale/ I have read through a lot of it, and seen some very important information in it. (How to domesticate creatures in the Tribal Phase, what purpose they serve, outfitting in tribal, food gathering methods, currency, and even confirmation of a planet editor. (or what seems like it))

Is this acceptable as a source for this page? (Some of it consists of unreadable data files, but most of it can be made out, if only with difficulty.) Brandonrc2 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem kosher. It's lifted from data files that shipped with the Creature Creator, so the source is Maxis themselves. 2p0rk (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just 2 months away for game release. Iam sure we can wait till then to add all info. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other versions

Please do not post the Wii, Xbox 360 or PS3 versions as platforms for Spore. For one, unless you can prove it'll even be the same game (ie. the DS version is Spore Creatures), especially since they said the Wii version would NOT be a port and would be something else (probably something that would deal with the lack of Wii storage capability for it.)JAF1970 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore (mobile) now Spore Origins

If anyone sees any references to Spore (mobile), change it to Spore Origins. JAF1970 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Spore_(mobile) --Per Abrahamsen (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Evisceration

Why is the article being eviscerated of links and information? The edits over the past 48 hours are not useful and reduce the quality of the article. JAF1970 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)