Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 22

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 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Grammar

The grammar on the page needs improvement. Sentences such as,

"There are Alpha creatures, which have higher health and stats, babies, which have lower health and stats." (missing an "and" before babies, presumably?) "The player may choose whether the creature is a herbivore or a carnivore ear to starting the stage." (shouldn't that be prior to starting the stage rather than ear to starting the stage?"

appear to contain errors. I fixed those two mistakes, but there are other questionable grammar choices (and possibly more mistakes). Someone reviewing the grammar for the entire article would be beneficial. 24.233.223.5 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkspore

It should be noted that EA has trademarked the name "Darkspore". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.36.88 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references? Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Trademark 1, Trademark 2, Trademark 3. TyrannoFan (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Though it should probably have its own page. - TyrannoFan - TF's Talk 11:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Official Website is now released. Darkspore.com Link. - TyrannoFan • TF's Talk • Contributions - 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Any news on its relation to Spore? Is it a direct sequal, a spinoff, or something totally unrelated? 75.157.120.15 (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The only things related to Spore in Darkspore is the 'Editor' (somewhat similar, except you don't start from scratch) and the NPC's which are actually creatures created by Spore players in Maxis Contests. - TyrannoFan • TF's Talk • Contributions - 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing first paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads: "Spore Galactic Adventures, an expansion pack for the PC game, Spore Hero and Spore Hero Arena for Wii and Nintendo DS respectively, is in the fall 2009 lineup, and Spore Creature Keeper have been announced as part of the 2009 lineup." This doesn't make any sense to me. As well, if they were in the 2009 lineup, aren't they released by now? I would just change this, but I don't know enough about the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.20.105 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Spore Creepy and Cute expansion pack

I suggest the Spore Creepy and Cute expansion pack article should be merged, since it seems to lack any third-party sources. It doesn't help its only a parts pack, rather than a full blown expansion. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It probably has them. A quick News search shows some coverage, and I'm sure IGN and other similar sources covered it.

Regardless, it would be best to create an article on Spore expansion packs rather than merging. While forking articles can be unnecessary, there is a chance that merging this article into the Spore main article could make it too unfocused. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Support merge - Even with a fair amount of critical reception for this expansion it can easily be covered in the main article with a paragraph or two. Additionally though the parent article seems long, there's a whole lot that can be trimmed, such as the System Requirements, which should be inserted into {{VG requirements}} and placed into the currently nonexistent development section. --Teancum (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that there have only been two expansion packs (although there were some Dr. Pepper bot parts as well), and Galactic Adventures already has its own article. Also, it appears that there used to be an article at Spore Creepy & Cute that was merged previously. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any opposition, so I'd merge all here. --Teancum (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge - The Creepy & Cute page is insubstantial and would benefit from the added context in this article. Chris (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge Development of Spore

I propose merging in Development of Spore to this page. I was going to review the article at WP:GAN, but when I looked it over and compared it to this article I felt that they could probably be merged into each other. While Spore has a long development history associated with it, most of the details that fill Development of Spore are trivial, or else can be combined together without loss of comprehension. As it is, the article suffers from a lack of context that a gameplay section would provide (i.e., it will be more helpful integrated here than as a subpage.) I'm not concerned about space issues because this article needs to be trimmed as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Support the Spore article could use a lot of trimming to remove unnecessary information, which in turn would easily allow for any essential development-related content to be placed here. --Teancum (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment May I suggest waiting until the end of the GA review before we decide whether to merge this or not? Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

sporn

should we add that EA bans people for making porn out of this??? Pyromania153 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference for reception of Spore by Educators

I wrote an article published in peer reviewed science education journal on both the controversy around spore in education. The paper suggests that despite the problematic representation of evolution that there is good reason to believe that the game is acting as a catalyst to engage its players to learn more about evolution.

As I wrote this particular article I didn't want to just directly add it to the Spore page. Figured I would post this note here and anyone interested could weave it in.

Owens, Trevor (2012-01-26). "Teaching intelligent design or sparking interest in science? What players do with Will Wright's Spore". Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9383-5. ISSN 1871-1510 1871-1502, 1871-1510. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

Oh, and if you don't have access to the journal article I have a unofficial but open copy of it on my own site.

--Tjowens (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Although it's clearly relevant, I can't quite put a coherent edit together from the abstract, I'm afraid, and I'm loathe to add a non-free source as an external link. Since your article is at least partly a response to the Science article, I think there's room to add a "however" clause to that discussion in the this wikipedia article. Perhaps you could suggest a suitable quote from your article which would work and I'll look into adding it. GDallimore (Talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you are interested in reading it the unofficial copy is up on my site. at http://www.trevorowens.org/vitae/teaching-intelligent-design-or-sparking-interest-in-science-what-players-do-with-will-wrights-spore/ Feel free to link out to that if you like, it is the same paper. It's OK by the publisher if I keep up an unofficial copy on my own site as long as it isn't their formated PDF.

As far as something one could say, this might be one option. While there are real problems with how the game models scientific phenomena there is reason to believe that "the simple toy-like environment Spore provides is serving as a springboard to engage with scientific ideas outside the game." (That is on page 11) Thanks for your help and consideration.--Tjowens (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thrive

Should Thrive be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldisbig (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Misquoting sources

The article's section entitled "scientific" accuraccy misquoted the articles it cited; sometimes this was just one word in a quote such as "seriously messed up" when Dr. Plum claimed that spore's evolutionary process was "severely messed up" [1]

A more serious error was quoting the wrong biologist! The article only quoted Dr. Near when it used the "severely messed up" line, when Dr. Prum was originally quoted in the NY Times Article (Dr. Prum and Dr. Near were both quoted in the same paragraph in the NY Times article)[2]

I have edited that particular section of the article so that it is no longer misquoting a source; there are probably more however, and others should therefore look into this.

Brianc26 (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One known bug sometimes happens in tribal stage when the game freezes, this bug is not supported by the latest patch for the game.

What does that even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.179.154 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The gameplay section is bloated beyond belief...

Does it really need to go into this much detail? With the amount of minutiae put into every single stage gameplay description, it reads more like a game manual at best, and SporeWiki at worst. I'd really like to trim it down, but I'd figure I should bring it up here in case there are eyes on this page (last talkpage edit being in 2012 is not making it seem likely)-- I'd likely be removing a lot of content, which some might take issue with me being too WP:BOLD about. I'll give it a few days for someone to voice their thoughts before I do anything. BlusterBlaster^kaboom! 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've let it sit for 4 days with no fanfare, so I'll just go ahead and prune it. Anyone taking issue at this point can just revert and discuss. BlusterBlaster^kaboom! 14:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Spore (2008 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)