Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Spice and Sporebucks

Spice is the 'resource', which you mine, control and seize, but Sporebucks are like the actual currency. Heirware (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? JAF1970 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay - leaked code is not official. Until there's definitive proof... JAF1970 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

$79.99 USD?

That seems redundant to me (in the intro paragraph), but I'm not familiar with the usage of USD. Is that standard? 151.188.17.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's used because the US isn't the only country to adopt the Dollar Sign (also known as Peso Sign) so this helps distinguish the difference between them. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Epic creatures

I've heard some talk of these creatures, being extremely giant animals which could, for example, step on other creatures to damage them, or be put on a foreign planet to wreak havoc prior to an invation. Shouldn't they have a mention in the article? Again, I'm too noob at Wikipedia and source references to be able to make a proper entry. I don't even know if they belong in the article. --Or-whatever (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The article already mentions creatures taller than the player is allowed to create, so if you wanted to add something I would alter that bit to make it to your liking (Assuming it isn't). Though you should be wary of adding things that belong in a stradegy guide. That creatures can possibly get that big may be notable enough to get in, what a player could or should do with them is probably a no-no. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I missed that. I better shut up from now on. --Or-whatever (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged, honestly trying to improve articles will always be welcomed. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Epic Creatures should be in the article. They're creatures that are solo (you never meet more than one) that function like the Barbarians from Civilization. They appear in the Creature, Tribal and Civ phase. JAF1970 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree, seems significant enough to me too. Joshuagross (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I was misunderstood. I never disagreed with the notability of the epic creature, or their inclusion in the article. I just noted that they are already mentioned in the article as a "non-player controlled creature taller than a tree". The part I was iffy about was including the idea of dropping them on other planets as part of an invasion. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you can drop them as an "invasion" I think that's signifigant, since even though they're not a playable character they are basically a tool. Or in the bit about dropping creatures on other planets we can say that you can also drop "epic" creatures. Chuy1530 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Restoration

I think the restoration didn't quite bring back everything. Anyone know how to restore the TOC and the missing cleanup information? ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, found it hiding within the Cleanup Page.ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the TOC before the first section. Not sure why it had to be done manually. Joshuagross (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in preview if I had changed the task force's link to a bogus link the TOC was in the correct location. It's like the TOC wanted to start before the Spore (video game) link under the task force. Wouldn't mind knowing how you moved the TOC manually either, I couldn't figure it out :) ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your edit now, able to see how it's done. Still showing the Spore (video game) as the first topic though. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, weird. Didn't see that. Maybe this talk page should be archived - seems rather large. I wouldn't think that would cause a problem but who knows. Joshuagross (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems to really want to pickup the taskforce header that's hidden as the first TOC entry. I do agree that an archive couldn't hurt, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it wouldn't help the TOC. I recall that taskforce expanded space being a different color and smaller (perhaps to solve the issue at hand) but I haven't a clue how it was done. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not just remove the Cleanup Taskforce box? The references look fine, and I don't think much has been done by the taskforce since January. Joshuagross (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about it after I checked out the Taskforce page. It's been unassigned for a while now. I'll remove it since it seems to be causing the TOC to have that one entry. It can be added back (or undone) if I'm in the wrong here. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YYnevrlHdy0 .. Will Wright states at the end of this interview, that Spore will be released September 7th worldwide. You don't get a much more reliable source. I wouldn't know how to refer to this in the sources, so will someone please correct the dates, and make an appropriate reference?

Thank you (I am extremely dissapointed myself, as I live in Europe)

--Or-whatever (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Still thats one man saying that when every other source is stating that it will be released in September 4th in Europe, September 5th in United Kingdom and September 7th in North America and other regions. If what he states would be so then I would think that EAstore for example would have changed the dates but they haven't so far. Also why would they change release date to September 4th just few weeks ago if they are going to change it to September 7th. If they change the dates on the sites to September 7th then it will be changed as there is now several sources to confirm the date change. Now its just him against every other source also he might have just forgotten that the game has separate release date in Europe as he was talking to the american audience. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why are these sources not referred to? The release date source is still the same old article that states it's the 5th in EU and 7th in NA. If there are more updated sources, shouldn't these be added? --Or-whatever (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its probably him just shortening the release date so it can be easily spoken. Yes it may have other release dates in specific places, but the first day it will be released worldwide is the 7th. So what he said can be true without nessesarily negating the other release dates. I know I wouldn't want to have to say four different release dates in an interview... but thats just me. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Beuchner says Sept 5 Europe, Sept 7 NA, period. Beuchner is the VP at EA who is dealing with Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I also just read at the official Spore website, that those were to be the official release dates. My bad, sorry. --Or-whatever (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ship date is not release date

Just a reminder: ship date is not the release (store) date. JAF1970 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
PALGN's dates are retail release date data for Australia, sourced from DVDFeed. They are not shipping dates. Spik3balloon (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • EA says Sept 5, period. End of story. See Mark Buechner's post. JAF1970 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Australia is not Europe. We do not follow the same release dates as Europe, and EA usually does major releases here on Thursdays. (see BF: Bad Company, Crysis, Mass Effect, Army of Two, Burnout Paradise, etc.) If you need further evidence, see the Australian dates quoted for Spore on GameSpot and VURP.
The producer is not going to list the Australian date on every response he has to give for a release date. (in fact, he does not specify 'Australia' or 'other territories' anywhere within that post) Oh, and don't tell me about EA AU's quoted date, because as a community moderator there the dates they have listed are usually to always incorrect. Spik3balloon (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PSsssssssssssssst. Patrick Buechner is not the VP of the producer - he's the VP of the PUBLISHER. Release dates are handled by the publisher. He's what's known as a first hand source. BY the way, denying EA's statement is like telling the Pope he's not really Catholic. This is like a year ago when people were citing March 3, 2008 because that's what Amazon.com posted. JAF1970 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well its still odd that some of the official EA store sites state it to be released on September 4th. For example Finnish page of EA store says it will be released at September 4th there is no mention about shipping date just release date. Also every other internet site that has it on pre-order list says it will be released on September 4th. I still don't really care about this as its trivial and I really don't care enough to argue about it. Its just odd that they don't even bother correcting their own internet shop sites to have the "correct" release date. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not going to continue this any longer, because you have shown that you are not going to accept this conclusion, even when the evidence is provided. It is irrelevant that he is the VP - he is not going to list the release date for every territory in a Facebook post. "Release dates are handled by the publisher" The release dates are handled by the LOCAL branches of the publisher, which in this case would be EA Australia. The information THEY give to the retailers (ie. through DVDFeed) is the correct date that this game will be released in Australia. And as stated before, Patrick did NOT state Australia anywhere within his post. Spik3balloon (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you need further proof: "Spore will be released for sale in Australia on 4 September 2008." "Spore ships for the PC, Mac, Nintendo DS™ and mobile phones on September 4, 2008 in Australia." "Find Spore in stores from September 4" Spik3balloon (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Patrick Buechner, who is in the good old Redwood City, California, says otherwise. We'll just have to wait til Sept 4 and see what happens, because Spore is Buechner's direct responsibility. JAF1970 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This is slightly annoying to people who live in Australia. Debate can rage for ever about whether release dates and ship dates are the same, but the fact is people look here for information about when the game will be available. Currently, they have nothing. The game will be released in Australia on September 4th, and people from Australia should be able to find this information here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.196.133 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "eurogamerrel" :
    • {{ cite web | author = Oli Welsh | date = [[2008-02-13]] | year = [[2008]] | url = http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=92666 | title = Europe is Priority for Spore | publisher = [[Eurogamer]] | accessdate=2006-03-01 }}
    • {{ cite web | author = Ian Bogost | date = [[2008-03-31]] | year = [[2008]] | url = http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18029 | title = Opinion: Is Spore 'For Everyone'? | publisher = [[Gamasutra]] | accessdate=2006-03-01 }}
  • "releasedate" :
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.spore.com/press_021208.php |title=EA and Maxis to ship Spore in September |date=2008-02-12 |publisher=Electronic Arts |accessdate=2008-02-12 }}
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.gamespot.com/mobile/strategy/spore/news.html?sid=6185899 |title=EA and Maxis to ship Spore in September |date=2008-02-12 |publisher=GameSpot |accessdate=2008-02-12 }}
  • "longzoom" :
    • {{ cite web | author = [[Steven Berlin Johnson]] | date = October 8 | year = 2006 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08games.html | title = The Long Zoom | format = newspaper | publisher = The New York Times Magazine | accessdate=2006-10-08 }}
    • {{cite web | author = [[Steven Berlin Johnson]] | date = June 25 | year = 2006 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08games.html | title = The Long Zoom | format = newspaper | publisher = The New York Times Magazine | accessdate=2006-10-08}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT remove sourced info

When did people remove the win condition of the game?


Unless you've played the game, do NOT remove sourced content. JAF1970 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't playing the game fall under "original research"? Joshuagross (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
JAF, stop being bossy. Perhaps the information was removed by mistake, or for a good reason? Don't go storming onto the talk page with that attitude. Also, with your most recent edit: you were re-adding back game guide content. Just because it's sourced, doesn't justify it being in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being bossy - you are. If you're going to remove that, it's time to head to the Civ articles and remove all the win conditions, too. Oh, and also, let's remove the factions from the Civ articles, too. JAF1970 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's time for consensus - who's in favor of keeping vital information about the game that's fully sourced from a reliable source, and who's not? JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Honestly, it's less information than each of the detailed Phase descriptions in the game. (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Reputable source of information that is directly related to the game play of the article. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You make a big deal EVERY TIME someone deletes information from the article. I recall a Wikipedia note about "don't edit articles if you don't want your work changed around" or whatever. You simply can't handle the fact the article changes. Then you use this talk page as the place to attack people and be uncivil. Anytime someone does an edit you think is "wrong" you revert, and/or make a rude comment here about it. It needs to stop. Stay away from my talk page. I have every right to remove comments that I've read, it's not a crime.RobJ1981 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:RobJ1981 Request for mediation filed. You can't use that logical fallacy - you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. You constantly remove valid edits with excuses they're against policy when they're not, you post the same "nonsense" on my talk page - and I've been attacked worse than you and have been forced to restore. You accuse me of being "bossy" and having "article ownership" while you are actually doing it. The fact that you refuse consensus on the issue speaks volumes. JAF1970 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this escalates any further, I don't see any reason why the section was removed. I support it being added as it seems like very worthwhile information that comes from a reputable source. I don't think JAF is out of line here really as I am interested in why it was removed myself. Sitting here arguing over the article isn't helping without declaring justifications. Just my two cents. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It smacks of wishful thinking, ClosedEyesSeeing. A lot of people want to believe it's like SimCity and has no resolution at all - when it does. However, like other Civilization-type games, you are permitted to continue after the main goal is completed. There's nothing being made up here. Heck, I didn't even name them in the article (Grobb) It seems to have occurred during the tons of anon IP edits. JAF1970 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems it was already found. It's the IPs only edit and it was to remove the resolution. Strange that it's been missing for two months. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd stopped keeping an eye on Spore for a while and missed it, myself. JAF1970 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Voting sucks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite what Joystiq says

It was not a quote from Maxis, and it was quite wrong. SimIsle had many win conditions as a goal of the game, as did the Sims "Stories" games. Even SimCity had win scenarios. Furthermore, I don't see the need to include trivia (policy). What does that information have to do with the game itself? JAF1970 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding a few things - Joystiq is a verifiable source. The line said "most Maxis", not "all Maxis". SimCity's scenarios were not win conditions. WP:TRIVIA applies to lists of trivia, not individual pieces of trivia within a sentence. Quoting the start of the article: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. I've made a point of noting your conduct on WT:VG. Fin©™ 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Joystiq is a blog that is verifiable because they name their sources. It's actually better policy when they give a source to use the source and not the Joystiq article itself. Did the article they take the source from actually state that Spore would be the first Maxis developed game to have a win condition? The statement they made was not a quote from their source; it was their own opinion. Trust me, I know the guys there. They've been wrong a few times, which is why they have to slap that [UPDATE] tag on a lot of their articles. :) JAF1970 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, you're confusing the word "most" with "all" or "first". Fin©™ 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not confused about trivia, though, and saying something like "Spore is the first game developed by Maxis to not have a win condition" or something like that is trivia. JAF1970 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That is trivia, but trivia is allowed under WP:TRIVIA, lists of trivia are discouraged under the same guideline. Quote: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia.". Fin©™ 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
For one, it's wrong - SimIsle and other Maxis games do have a win condition, or a series of win conditions. For another, it's trivia. Want me to contact Ross and tell him he made a mistake? JAF1970 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the article would look like properly if you include it, by the way:

Gameplay

stuff stuff stuff

The game is won by reaching a quasar placed in the center of the galaxy, and facing "the largest NPC race whose giant empire blocks the way."[1]

article article, near the bottom:

Trivia

Unlike most Maxis games, Spore is the first game to feature an absolute win condition.[2]

See my point? JAF1970 (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point continuing this discussion, you're being completely unreasonable and misrepresenting my argument. The trivia was included at the start of a sentence, backed with a reference that stated it was a Maxis tradition to have open-ended games. The sentence said "most Maxis games". It did not say "all Maxis games". It did not say "Spore is the first Maxis game". I never suggested putting it into a trivia section, as you've just demonstrated, that came from you alone. Trivia is ok when included in the prose of an article Goodnight. Fin©™ 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You know what would be helpful? More bold! And maybe italics too. Or what about... Bold and italics? Or maybe bold, italics and caps lock? Because really, if that doesn't work then quite frankly he will never understand. I mean, who could argue with bold, italics and caps lock?198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Release

Regardless, when Spore is finally released, there needs to be a major cleanup, as references to the past should be moved to Development of SPore (ie. the GDC, etc stuff) and gameplay will be fully revealed. Especially since there's a twist ending when you reach the center of the galaxy. JAF1970 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see (after the release) that picture of the elder creature editor replaced with the current one used within the game. I'd prefer not to use a picture of the one currently released as anyone knows... things do change. :) ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any picture of the creature editor on the page. The only editor that is seen in a picture on this page is tribal clothing editor not creature editor. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, seems I didn't catch that change. Thanks! ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I changed the image. It was ancient. JAF1970 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Making it more of a game article

I'm removing various references to Will Wright and stuff remarking "will and should" to "is and are", because Spore is no longer a game concept or a game in development: it's a completed game. The article should reflect the game's features in relation to the player. That is, it's no longer "Will Wright says that A will be B". It's now "A will be B", period. JAF1970 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

OK, let's see if this isn't a good article nominee. There's not too many pics, the article is objective and precise, a lot of fat has been cut away, and its citations are uniform. JAF1970 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this article for GAN because it will change significantly once it's actually released. Please wait for it to be released and for major changes to the article to slow down before nominating it again. Gary King (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the article will change significantly, but ok. JAF1970 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Unreleased games, films, etc. do not pass the the 5. Stable criterion at Wikipedia:Good article criteria because they will change significantly after they are released. A lot more information will be available once these items are released, and there is a set date that this happens, so the article will not have to wait for an indefinite period of time before it can be submitted to GAN. Gary King (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but give the article a once-over - when it's submitted a week from now, what will it need if nothing changes? JAF1970 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't assume nothing will change, because it most certainly will. Just wait a week – the article is in good shape now, for an unreleased game – but the game is still unreleased. Gary King (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that. Just wanted to see if that all things being equal.... JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection until 2009?

The log says that the semi-protection expires on 7 September 2009, but the game will be released in 2008 not 2009.--SuperSecret 12:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh! Another Spore delay!!!! :p JAF1970 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
oops...my bad. Fixed back to 2008. DMacks (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Trust us, Dmacks, not a single person would be shocked by Spore being delayed til 2009 :p JAF1970 (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I will, since it already is being released in Australia. Wasgood1 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm?. Why was it semi-protected?.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring over the release-dates. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point, DMacks, feel free to remove the prot. Issue is over. JAF1970 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Permission to include reception box

Would like to include the Template:VG Reviews box. JAF1970 (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Once the game comes out and there are several reviews, then yes, for sure. Gary King (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay question

In the Space phase: "When establishing colonies on alien worlds, players have to take care of them as they would any other city and keep morale up." If anyone knows what the failure state result is, please post. (ie. does the city die? does the city form its own civ? etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The PC Gamer review mentions that they can be attacked, but says nothing about morale. I can't open it here, but GamingSteve's forum has a Spore guide that has details and walkthroughs on gameplay in each phase and each editor, you may want to check that out (I assume it was written by someone who has played the game, as it's quite specific.) 206.126.163.20 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I take that back, it doesn't mention anything about space phase, just civilization and back. Shoot. It does mention that cities are harder to convert if they're happier, but I have no idea if AI doing that to your city are affected, or whether than even can do that. Someone has to have a hold on this game by now (retailers selling early), and hopefully as the reviews trickle in more info will follow. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Let us know. It's important to the article. JAF1970 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Tyler Nagata. "The never-ending game". GamesRadar. Future Publishing.
  2. ^ http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/17/spore-space-phase-is-15-20-hours-has-one-ending/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spore_(2008_video_game)/Archive_15&oldid=1083348869"