Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 10

Sporn
what about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.137.175 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article?
Surely we're getting close now? When can we have a re-review?Autonova (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As the game isn't yet released, it still could be likely to change a lot. Wait until after the game is released before re-nomination. --Samtheboy (t/c) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Wait til Sept. JAF1970 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

iphone is not the full version
It's already been shown that the iphone version is Spore (mobile), and not the full version (check the archive). Kotaku was 100% wrong and did speculation - EA later clarified. 212.178.38.234 (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Resellers NOT valid release date
This has been discussed and agreed upon a long, long time ago (check the archives Talk:Spore (video game)/Archive 6 and Talk:Spore (video game)/Archive 7) that EB Games, Amazon, etc, are NOT valid sources of release dates. JAF1970 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I hate to get in the way of a nice edit war as it begins, I have to agree -- generally speaking, the community recognizes that these retail release dates are pretty much bunk -- they are known to get people to preorder in anticipation, but are generally not valid unless a publisher specifically says it. KiTA (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yamla already stated (in Archive 6): Please see WP:RS. This is not a reliable source. --Yamla 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC) JAF1970 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Most VG articles will see edits like that one quickly reverted.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 00:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links are not excessive
The policy quoted by User:Skywalker in this edit summary (WP:NOT) does not apply: that policy is for articles with no content other than a list of links. This article is currently 49 KB long, and has 63 citations. Seven external links is not too many.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 10:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the link are just full of images plus information. The fansite kit is first shown in official page there is no need to link all this. Just only official site must be included oh yes (WP:NOT) does apply. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? And which of the following:
 * Wikipedia articles are not:


 * 1) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories....
 * 2) Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages and for lists....
 * 3) Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code....
 * 4) Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles....
 * is the Spore (video game) article ?
 * Furthermore, the links to "images plus information" exactly fit in with External links item number 3:
 * Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail....
 * — D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is customary to have the dev link, tho. However, www.maxis.com redirects to Spore.com anyway. (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the information is based on year 2007. It is year 2008 already and many things would have changed in development. Most of the link there is unreliable sources. Like any other game article it should have just an official site. That is it. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point out specific developmental changes that invalidate those links, please? Being over 5 months old doesn't automatically void them.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 07:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The most relevant guideline is WP:VG/EL, which is the External Link guideline for video game articles. The only external links that are to be included are as follows: a) Official homepage b) dev's and pub's official sites (not necessary if the official homepage is housed on one of their sites) c) a link to the official place to download the game if it is distributed in this manner d) pages that contain substantial information. We're talking places like MobyGames and imdb—places with lots of information that cannot be included on an encyclopedia. Inappropriate sites include: fansites, third party commercial sites (i.e. GameSpot), forums, and illegal download sites. clicketyclick yaketyyak 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the Spore wiki? ( http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page ) Is it ok to add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.22 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Spice
Just wondering should it be mentioned that the game currency Spice most likely has been influenced by the movie Dune. Where subtance called Spice was most important subtance in the galaxy. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this. No. Spice can mean any number of things (Marco Polo, spice, etc.) - and besides, the term may be changed by the time the game is shipped. Unless the devs or EA specifically say it's a Dune reference, no. The devs specifically compared the Grobb to the Borg, which is why it's mentioned. JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Official box art
Official box art, as seen on the EA page. The larger box art sent out is more elaborate, of course (ESRB rating, platform). JAF1970 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. Being a few months from release, it's subject to change, of course, but that box art is issued by EA, making it official til they decide to change it. JAF1970 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Trimming refs
Trimmed the references. We only need 2 per, and some of the references weren't exactly reputable. Used the biggest circulation articles (ie. New York Times, IGN, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reason we need ALL of the refs? JAF1970 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We do NOT need 8 references for EACH thing. Trimming deletes 3KB of fat from the article. JAF1970 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) For example: This is not reliable. Seriously! is the creation of a group of gamers who got together and decided that there needed to be a central source for Serious Sam information and news. From there Seriously! has grown into one of the largest online fansite communities around the globe and we think one of the friendliest. Are you kidding me? JAF1970 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to show a reason for deleting references from reliable sources. Adding references is its own justification on wikipedia. What's your justification for deleting references? It's acceptable to delete one or some references that are unreliable. I would accept the deltion of the "Seriously!" reference. But this does not justify the deletion of many reliable resources. Randomran (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here a reason: You don't need 8 when 2 will do for each. Period. Just use the most reliable two for each. The main point is none of the facts are being changed. THe point is proven. Doing this makes the article smaller and more qualified for GA status. JAF1970 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why did you use THREE references when you tried to prove that Spore is only a god game? Skele (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, uh, there's only 2. JAF1970 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA nominations don't usually fail for too many references. GA usually fail for too few. You're going to have to point to a policy that justifies the removal of references, since WP:references talks about references as ONLY a good thing. The very purpose of references is to avoid challenges to certain statements in an article, and references are especially important for this part of the article which has been quite contentious in the past.  I would appreciate it if you could find an actual wikipedia policy reason for deleting references, rather than your own personal opinion. If not, we should revert to the cleaned up references at this edit. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They do fail for size. And removing stuff that only clogs the article removed some size. Honestly, how is the article changed? JAF1970 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I was aware, any size issues are addressed by removing sections to different pages, with only a brief outline on the main page, not by removing refs? John  .n-  IRL  22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is lessened. For one, 18 lines of references are gone. The article is 3.1 shorter, and honestly, this does not look good aethetically. JAF1970 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling I was looking at the wrong edit, that was too many. Now im just confused...ha. John  .n-  IRL  14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free here, if a fresh MedCab case needs opening, you know where to go. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * hahah, is this argument for real? The article does not need so many bloody references for each thing. The "justification" for removing them is that they are excessive, superfluous, and redundant. (!) More sources do not make the sentences more reliable. It just makes them more crowded. We don't need to use every single article that mentions Spore.  clicketyclick yaketyyak 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. JAF1970 (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a step back and thought about this. True, there's no wikipedia policy to limit references doesn't limit references. And it's also true that the number two is completely arbitrary. But the real issue I'm concerned with is if someone removes references to eventually delete reliable information, or lower the standard to add unreliable information. That hasn't happened yet (although it was the subject of a dispute in the past). If someone does start trashing the article based on original or unreliable research, then it will become necessary to reinforce the reliable research once again. But until then, I'm willing to take the chance that we only need a couple of references for each statement. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one's deleted "reliable information". Unless you write for those sites, and need the net traffic, no one cares. JAF1970 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People make attempts to delete reliable information all the time on wikipedia, unfortunately. But usually those disputes can be settled quite easily. In other words, we'll cross that bridge if we ever get to it. Hopefully we won't. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't let the tail wag the dog. The references only are there to back up statements made in the article, not vice-versa. JAF1970 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New article
Huge article - new info from that article added. JAF1970 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the "cleanup" mess
While I appreciate Autonova's attempt to clean up the article, they deleted some citations, and created new messes - ie. Licensing - left a list of items, which is a Wiki no-no - I fixed that, but the "cleanup" needs more "cleanup". JAF1970 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone else must've previously removed those citations- I counted the number of citations before and after my epic blitzing and saw no difference, unless im an idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.164.119 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

gamersglobal
There are alot of sources from www.gamersglobal.com, this website is user submitted content, see here, so it fails wp:rs, either better sources must be found or the sourced material must be removed. John .n-  IRL  17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an actual INTERVIEW with Lucy Bradshaw. Unless Bradshaw was fired from being the executive producer of Spore, then it's a very valid source. JAF1970 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its not, the content of a source does not make it valid, but the editorial checks placed upon it. John  .n-  IRL  17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it does. Unless you want to wipe every reference to Joystiq and Kotaku from Wikipedia, too. This is an actual interview with an actual person from Maxis in an actual position of control. It's valid and it belongs. If you like, I'll send the article to Gamespot, IGN, 1up.com, etc and they'll report on the story, too. JAF1970 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you wrote this article? And Kotaku and Joystiq have an editorial review process, and as such are valid sources.  discussed here.
 * No, I did not write the article. However, this story's already making circulations, and other sites have already verified it. It should be popping up on Joystiq any moment now, too. I also know people at Maxis, and this is an easily verified interview. I don't see what your problem is - or are you saying that the author of this article lied about interviewing Bradshaw... or misquoted her - which is impossible, since it's a basic Q&A. JAF1970 (talk)
 * Incidentally, this is an interview, not "game news". The only way an interview can be non-policy is if the author:
 * lied about even having the interview
 * misquoted the interviewee somehow
 * I don't see either here, especially since it's pretty damned hard to misquote a direct Q&A. (Though you can omit info, which would be silly since the Wikiarticle is cherrypicking from the article anyway.) JAF1970 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course its not impossible. You cannot personally verify an interview. I'm sorry but this fails wp:rs in my opinion, if it becomes verified by other sources, good, post that source. However for now im going to replace it with citation needed.


 * Nobody is asserting anybody lied. The source is merely unreliable which means any number of errors are possible: lies, omissions, point of view... Don't shoot the messenger. Read the policy. The source is the person who wrote the article, not the person who gave the interview. Otherwise I'd be able to use my interviews with Jesus Christ as a reliable source, and accuse you of hating Jesus if you call my interviews unreliable. If the same information is being reported by reliable sources, then let's use those. Otherwise, unreliable information should be removed. Randomran (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no, because you can't ask God if you really did talk to Jesus Christ. I can easily contact Patrick Buechner and ask him if the interview is real. Calling this article an unreliable source is a clear act of ad hominem. JAF1970 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't change things that are being discussed in the Talk page. Take it up here now, where discussion shall commence. JAF1970 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Inside Mac picked up the story - actually, they picked it up five hours ago. First of many. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Err...I brought it up here, explained what I felt needed doing and why, then did it. wp:bold. John  .n-  IRL  18:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, here's the other thing - Inside Mac picked up the story. So, it's "verified"... but now, you have the problem of if you only accept Inside Mac, they're not reporting the WHOLE story. THAT can only be done at the source, which is Gamers Global. But, according to "policy", you can't use GG because it's "not policy", but Inside Mac isn't reporting the whole story. Again, ad hominem at work. JAF1970 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember: the standard for inclusion in wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiability. If we were seeking truth, then we would dismiss ad hominem attacks. But verifiability is 100% ad hominem: whether this information is true or not, do we trust this source? As true as the information may be, a site that lets literally anyone post anything they want can never be considered reliable. Familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliable sources and take it up with the policymakers. Randomran (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except you're attacking the person doing the interviewing and not the INTERVIEW SUBJECT. Keep in mind, you're going to verification from people who are the interview subject in this article. This is not game news - this is a Q&A. Now, the entire deal is whether the interviewer lied about having the interview in the first place. And again, it's verified, but now you have the issue of which site to use - Inside Mac isn't the source, but it's an "official" site, while GG has the complete facts and info, but isn't "official". Get the problem now? JAF1970 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes, I'm emailing the policymakers at Wikipedia myself, discussing the paradox. JAF1970 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since it's coming from GG, every word out of Bradshaw's mouth must be a lie, huh? As far as policy, you do know the problems with this, right? Bureaucracy can create definite problems. Read that section, including these in particular:

A phenomenon of group thinking - zealotry, loyalty and lack of critical thinking regarding the organisation which is perfect and always correct by definition, making the organisation unable to change and realise its own mistakes and limitations; Disregard for dissenting opinions, even when such views suit the available data better than the opinion of the majority; Not allowing people to use common sense, as everything must be as is written by the law. JAF1970 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth. I merely said the interview is unreliable. The information might be true, but we can't rely upon it for the numerous times that wikipedia could get burned. Randomran (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may have an issue with wikipedia policywhich doesnt need discussion here. John  .n-  IRL  18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the source has been verified. But it's a "bad source". So now, you have to go with the "good" source, but the "good" source isn't the raw data. By the way, Randomran, you stated that truth isn't important in Wikipedia - that's a direct quote, so no one is putting words in your mouth. JAF1970 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means. It has nothing to do with verifiability. JAF1970 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem, now the solution
cite web|url=http://www.gamersglobal.com/special/interview/interview-with-spores-executive-producer-lucy-bradshaw| title=Interview with Spore Executive Producer Lucy Bradshaw| work=GamersGlobal| accessdate=2008-05-20| date=2008-05-20| quote=Inside Mac verification

The future solution: have a "verified=" section of the template. JAF1970 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes more sense to me. InsideMac is a little more reliable, although they are just quoting the interview itself. When reliable sources start relying upon "unreliable" information, that helps to establish reliability. This is still in the gray area. But the interview has a lot of useful and true information. I'm sure this will be a non-issue once the game comes out anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there should be a "verified=", really. JAF1970 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that's why we use multiple sources: when relying upon one source might be called into question. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, more elegant, less clutter this way. By the way, not to sound too forum-ish, but you know those badges will be like Achievement points for Spore players. Major bragging point. JAF1970 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, you mentioned earlier that you could easily contact Buechner to verify the interview. I just wanted to point out that that wouldn't pass the verifiability requirement, since you would be using your connections related to your career to verify it. WP:V is about the ability of anyone reading the article to verify it. Most people simply can't contact Buechner.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BY the way, you folks have some facts wrong. From the site owner: ''(I am aware that this is a double post, feel free to delete it if it doesn't belong here:) I am the author/interviewer of the Spore interview with Lucy Bradshaw, and I also own GamersGlobal.com. Let me explain one thing about the site: While any registered user can post news directly to the site, everything which appears as a "top news" (on the left side of the main page) was chosen / edited by an editor, and all "Specials" (e.g. Interviews) are written by an editor. Now, the only editor of the site at the moment is me, but I have been a professional games journalist for 14 years, for example heading GameStar magazine and www.gamestar.de as editor-in-chief for seven years. ---Joerg Langer, GamersGlobal.com '' JAF1970 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Based upon what he said, the site certainly doesnt pass wp:rs. One editor checking his own posts? John  .n-  IRL  23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New official stuff
Worthplaying. JAF1970 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it's just official press release stuff- but in the space phase part of the press release, that "mission based" stuff is pretty new to me. JAF1970 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tide pool now "Cell"
They haven't updated it on the official site yet, but Maxis is now calling it the "cell" phase. JAF1970 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

1 Version for Mac OS X and Windows?
In the boxart image for this article, it clearly states on the box, that it's compatible with both Windows and Mac OS X. Does this mean, there will be one version compatible with both? Because in the article under the "platforms" section, it's stated that there will be seperate Mac OS X and Windows versions. -Jort227 (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the sources is obviously chronologically much further back than the other, so I imagine that the current plan is for a single-box release for both platforms. That said, that "cover art" is a bit dubious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's official. I believe it's a dual-platform game (both versions of Spore on one DVD.) JAF1970 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking note of Spores small size (under 1 GB), I have to agree with JAF. And if I where Maxis I would definetly do something like that. Skele (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be the first company to release a dual-platform disc, so I'm not terribly surprised. I know my Diablo 2 discs (or maybe just the expansion) worked for either OS. No reason to think the tag on the image is wrong. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spore Creature Creator video
IGN. This is just a flimsy excuse to say "OMFG", but it also shows off the all the option buttons, so if anyone wants to include some of what the creator includes, feel free. Don't go overboard, tho. JAF1970 (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Science of Spore
New video - The Science of Spore. While the Creature Phase video contains nothing new, the Science of Spore video has a lot of information nuggets, two of which I posted. JAF1970 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More Spore FAQ
New items added to the FAQ not discussed in the article:

Q: How much do the physical capabilities of your creature influence their effectiveness in combat during the tribal, and civilization stages? A: In tribe stage physical abilities still directly influence your creature’s success. For example, a high stealth ability can mean the difference between success or failure in an ambush. Meanwhile, the use of tools begins to play a larger role in the success of the species.

In civilization stage, your creature will develop more sophisticated technology. Here, the emphasis is more on strategic use of modern advancements rather than physical abilities.

However, in creature, tribe, civilization and space stages your creature also evolves super abilities depending on what strategy it developed in previous stages.

Q: In the space phase will you just control your own spaceship, or will you be able to command fleets of ships? A: When you form an alliance with and alien empire in space, a spaceship from that species will join your own. By forming multiple alliances, you can build a small fleet which you lead by controlling your own spaceship, at the helm of the group.

Q: Can I make creatures that live underwater or in trees? A: In Spore’s Cell phase your tiny creature will grow in its underwater world. The remainder of the game takes place on land, where you can grow your humble little beast into a world dominating species.

If anyone wants to post them, go ahead. JAF1970 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought up the "Can I make creatures that live underwater or in trees" question a while back, but was shot down when I mentioned it. It seems that there's no Underwater phases (merged into Tidepool) nor Domed Underwater cities any longer. KiTA (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We were waiting for confirmation, KiTA. Big diff. JAF1970 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the EXACT SAME FAQ ENTRY that I mentioned earlier. KiTA (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, they just added those items. JAF1970 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not all of them -- Here is my mentioning the Underwater stuff on archive 9 in March.  Anyway, bitterness aside, one of the new trailers they've released in the last week or so (creature or tidepool) shows a tidepool creature crawling onto land now, so at least that much is confirmed -- the tidepool stage just keeps getting bigger until you're spit out on the beach.  In addition one of the videos specifically mentions the game starts with a meteor landing in the ocean with life on it...  KiTA (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heres the official video from the site where Will Wright mentions that it will start with life coming on the planet as single cell organism. He doesn't himself say that it comes in a meteor but there is shown how meteor with a lot of ice is flying towards the planet and hits it and then the cell phase starts. He also refers to Panspermia that literally means that the building blogs to life come in a meteor. I link the video in youtube because for some odd reason the videos in the official site doesn't work for me, but this is taken from the official site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7F1nuuT9vA If I'm not wrong the name of the trailer is Science of Spore. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm cut off from the videos due to me being at work right now, but I think it's the Tidepool phase trailer on the Spore.com website that says it, it shows a rock with water in the center and zooms in to show the early parts of the tidepool phase started on it. KiTA (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if anyone wants to include those facts, go ahead. JAF1970 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started to assume that the underwater cities will be released as an expansion pack. The water phase might still be having problems, or they have pushed it to a back burner, but since there is so much interest, I definably see them continuing development on it once the September release is bug free.  Plus they can make more money that way!