Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 2

Links
Put the links to the movies back. They're a worthy source.


 * You mean the 2005 GDC demo? Should be done. 220.237.189.218 07:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Creature make up... who cares?
Does the creature make up impact the level and type of technologies available to the creature race? Or once they hit this level, all technologies and research are achievable? If so, then it DOES NOT matter how your creature progresses, looks like, acts, etc. It would all be the same in the end.
 * This, this is a good question. Not one that anyone here can answer, but still a good question. I would guess that the seperate stages all act pretty much seperate, giving what we've had to look at, but I have no real answer. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How you play the creatures will determine whether the civilization will be aggressive, social, etc., when it is uploaded to other players. --HeltenHelge 16:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In a game where there's no way to "win", it hardly matters, does it? You might be applying habits of thought conditioned by Civ or Ages of Empire. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A game without a "win" isn't hardly worth playing, now is it? If all you have to show for the game is a funny looking creature with everything else the same in the end... what then? Sure you can battle other players, but if their result is the same as yours, why bother?

-G
 * Tell that to all the people who bought The Sims and The Sims 2, two of the highest selling games ever. Chris M. 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Creature makeup wont make a different past the tribal stage.
 * Besides slight societal differences, sounds like it. There's nothing solid enough to include in the article though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all true, but think of how awesome it would be to give a tiny little puffball a tank and have it blow up one of the world's most fearsome predators. Besides, you can completely customize your Sim in the Sims 2, and it does have all that much effect until Nightlife, where Turn Ons and Turn Offs are added. RememberMe? 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Per the above 'Why bother' comment: the idea behind a 'software toy' (a game without a 'win' condition) is that it frees the player from anyone's arbitrary idea of what makes up a 'win' scenario. 'The Sims' (and most of Will Wright's 'Sim' titles) had what Wright termed 'failure space': the ability to see how the 'software toy' will react to certain events.  We've all heard stories about the kid that spent two hours finding every possible method of electrocuting, drowning, burning, and otherwise torturing and abusing his Sims.  The point is that a 'win' condition imposes an artificial limit on creativity, while a game that never ends can have almost infinite variations. DarkMasterBob 11:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article? (todo)
Are we going to try for a Featured Article? I would think we should try for Good Article first - though I don't know if a speculatory article would get considered for either. I'm certainly no expert, so if you guys want to aspire, I'll work right beside you, but I think we are pretty far from FA and GA status right now (I'm currently working on with the teams for the Chicago and Illinois pages to this purpose (albiet in a minor role). Illinois just made it to GA, Chicago has been knocked back for FA a couple times. I guess I'm trying to say it isn't easy, but I'll support that effort if that's what you folk want to do. Robovski 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think an article about a future release seems realistic for FA - while it's got a lot of facts-so-far information, there's simply too much chance that it'll change, possibly dramatically. GA is certainly a worthwhile target (for any article!) but FA doesn't seem a likely goal until at least the game is released. --User:Firien § 09:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I didn't think FA was a possibility at this stage either, but it was briefly showing on the todo list. I do think this could be a GA, but that will likely be after release (and the maybe we can be a FA). Robovski 21:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, this article is in a rather messy state. Information is repeated not only once, but several times across sections, and it isn't very well laid out in general. To be honest, this article might need something as drastic as a rewrite based on all the information currently scattered across the whole article. It certainly needs a lot of working on, in any case.
 * -- Andreas Blixt 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Andreas Blixt 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External Link Discussions/Disputes
I've moved this section to its own page: Talk:Spore (video game)/External Link Discussions and Disputes.

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design vs Evolution remark
"oh no" is all I can say in regards to this. Is there a reference to cite what Will Wright calls this game type so that this issue can immediately be nipped in the bud before something gets out of hand? (because it will) --63.117.239.165 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Will uses the term "evolve" and "evolution" many times in his GDC presentation (see link at the top of the list -300+mb download), there is no reference whatsoever to the term "intelligent design" and there is no reference whatsoever to anything that would require a link to intelligent design. It has NO place in this article.  His only contribution was to change evolution to intelligent design and if a person has any knowledge of the game itself, it would be clear that was not a term EVER used to describe it by it's creators nor what the game means.  Issue nipped. Chris M. 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just making sure. No need to get capslockish. With a topic such as evolution vs creationism. We must make sure that Will Wright specifically uses the term evolution or there will be arguments of whether this game is a game with an evolution theme or an intelligent design them. I think it has both IMO.


 * The "EVER" was caps for emphasis, should have used ever, but it had the same point. He did use the world evolution and evolve.  But yes, there is a theme of intelligent design because the player is intelligent, and designing a world.  But it doesn't mean the ID as referenced in the link.  Evolution is far more appropriate for that particular link.  There is no need for an intelligent design link in this article. Chris M. 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - obviously there is an element of intelligent design as you, the player, will select changes in your creatures so as to adapt to the environment but see no reason why a link to the intelligent design article need be included in the Spore article. Frankly, I don't think we need to go with either, and don't want to get involved. This is a game, and it looks like a fantastic game, the last thing I want to do is get caught up in the evolution/intelligent design/creationism debate. Robovski 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's intelligent design of evolution. -- Миборовский U 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How could you possibly avoid making a game that didn't have some kind of resemblance to Intelligent Design? The only way to do that would be if you had no control over the evolution, and with a game like Spore, that would be like running the disk then sitting back to watch the game play itself. -- Specusci


 * It's funny how christian fundamentalists haven't condemned this yet. I guess they don't know about it. Joffeloff 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I can certianly imagine some group of some kind will be offended (there's always someone) from an evolution point (or theological) you could say that the game supports some creation theories in that there is a guiding powerful force behind the 'evolution' of the creatures, the land, the very society that the 'chosen' live in. You play god (which is bound to tick off other poeple), albeit a god that isn't truely omnipotent. Robovski 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If the game had a Creationism theme, you would create your civilization without taking them through stages, or phases. People, Adam and Eve is creationism. Dont try to pass it out as just mythology. If you believe in creationism, you dont believe in evolution. Simple as that. Its not apples and oranges. Theories like intelligent design merge both theories, but intelligent design is STILL THEOLOGY. Besides, you dont have to be making up theories with Middle age theological categories to justify god in a world that believes in evolution, because evolution in NO WAY denies god. It only denies god in theology, which centers itself in a very narrow logic that if they get out of just a little bit, their whole system collapses, hence their need to call it "intelligent design". - Mailrobot May 17, 2006


 * Irrelevant to the article or the part of the article in question. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design implies that the player is more intelligent than the creatures he creates - and that is not true. Intelligence in the game universe of Spore surpasses by far the intelligence of the player. We have not UFOs, we have no interstellar drive etc. At the tide pool phase the player actually takes the role of the random mutations that take place during the evolution of a species. The fact about procedural generated gameplay is that even though you control the evolution the result is unknown - you basically change the rules of life in the dynamic system, and that generates emergent gameplay.Phoebusγράψε μου κάτι 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that the entire system taken as a whole will represent neither strictly evolution nor strictly intelligent design. To be more specific, evolution would imply the fitness of some organism increasing steadily due to random changes; but as Will Wright has made clear, the player will be allowed to make any changes at all, regardless of the effect on fitness. Thus, it cannot be considered strictly an evolution-related game. I don't think intelligent design applies fully either, since the modifications are guided constantly by the player, rather than planned out or designed in advance. Tylerbot 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why the article talks about teleology. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right! Heh. I've read through that teleology article and agree with you. Though since this is talk, I don't think it appropriate to remove my previous entry (now that I've decided it extraneous).. do you agree? I'm rather new to wikiwiki. Tylerbot 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, it leaves a nice conversation trail, and other people who read the page will see that it's been talked about before. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. :-) If need any questions answered, feel free to drop by my Talk page and ask 'em. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's convoluted creationism. Look at it this way, you can stop Natural selection killing off your animal if it's not ideal for your environment, because you control it and as an intellligence are better at deciding what to do than an animal would just by itself. Moreover, you are able to add onto the animal things that wouldn't necessarily evolve - we all would like an extra pair of arms, and it would enable us to do more, but we don't have them.--80.42.110.228 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd say it's a game. This fuss about creation and evolution is a byproduct of the current political climate in a small part of the world, and has nothing to do with the game. I mean, if it was a century earlier, people would be fussing about Darwinism versus Lamarckism instead. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Release Date
Since no definite release date has been set, or release year for that matter, the article should reflect that, so I changed the publishing date from 2007 to "Q3 2006 to Q$ 2007 although no definite date has been announced." Also, it makes the main article match the quick stats bar on the right. -- Lu Yan 8:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It would definitely help if you provided a cite for that. Otherwise it just sounds like guesswork, which is not encyclopedial. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the only info we have to suggest Fall '06 was from the Gaming Steve Interview with Will Wright 2005, which was just following E3. The evidence for an '07 release is the Wired 14.04 Spore article.  which says "EA will release Spore next year."  The evidence for an early '07 release date is found in the Advanced Prototyping presentation given at GDC '06 by a spore developer.  I have it on my PC but can't upload it at the moment.  But it shows a graph of the prototyping schedule that goes until March '07.  So while it isn't DEFINITE that it will come out before March '07, there is no evidence to suggest it will be later then that. Chris M. 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

According to episode 47 (The newest at this time) of gamingsteve, Q3 2006 is still the projected release date, but the unoffical word is that it'll come out when it comes out--Sgore 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the cite on the April 2007 or later date (though sad to hear). Good work, I think that can stand until we have new news. Robovski 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2007 projection looks like a date for the DS and PSP releases, but I'm not sure. --Specusci


 * Sure, E3 isn't over yet, but the EA press release (and I believe there is a webcast too) shows that it will not be released in this fiscal year, which means after March 2007 - April 2007 would be the earliest it could be released. Perhaps console/handheld releases would be simultaneous rather than later, but that's pure speculation.Robovski 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that kind of thing have a source on the article itself? Or at least a link presented to it cite it here? Chris M. 15:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I think that's fair. I'm tracking down original source links now, but here's a report of the EA print press release as reported on Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9162 I'll add material after I have it down to base (EA preferably) links. Robovski 23:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, from the EA investor relations site:http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=88189&eventID=1306810 provides links for the May 3, 2006 earnings conference. Apparently it is hours long and mentions Spore the once as not comming out until the new fiscal year - which means at the earliest we will see Spore in April 2007. These links may be usefull for an inline cite, but's it's a lot of work to follow up on, so maybe the Gamasutra link should be provided as it is more easily accessable. Robovski 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Got this one tonight, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006-05-08-spore-played_x.htm?csp=34 says release will be "next year".Robovski 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a release date of Q4 2006. See http://pc.ign.com/objects/735/735340.html DrIdiot 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Revamp
I have been thinking about the article a lot lately, and I think we need a overhaul of the article. I'd thought I'd discuss this first instead of just wading in and possibly irritating other editors. I think the leader section isn't very good for what it should be doing, that being a brief description of the game itself. Currently we cover development history first. The article as a whole seems relatively disorganized, and there is a lot of weak speculation and poorly referenced material. I've also thought that with all of the new video content out there, that maybe we are becomming a bit waterlogged with links to videos of gamplay. For example, from the current External Links section: I generally prefer to include material than exclude but we are covering some of the same ground here a few times. Perhaps some of this stuff would be better found in a development sub-article for Spore? So to summarize, I think we need to weed out some of the speculation, revamp the leader intro and maybe move some stuff into sub articles. What do you folks think?Robovski 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2006 E3 Spore Video - Link to the 2006 E3 video of Spore.
 * detailed spore trailer - a trailer that shows you the creature, tribal and intergalactic elements of spore
 * Official Spore Trailer in HD & Spore G4 Video - High quality official Spore trailer and Spore featured on G4
 * Will Wright giving another Spore demo - 20 Min presentation of Spore at E3 2006


 * Added xSpore.com's site back into the external links section since it has been commonly agreed upon that it deserves a link (search this page for the proper evidence. WikiStylee 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have consolidated (most of) the external link discussions into one header for clarity and ease of reference, as the page is getting a bit long. As you can see there are bits scattered about in other places too. Robovski 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC) * Agreed. 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Release Date
From sporewiki.com:

In this GameSpy article, Wright supports the above.


 * WW: We're saying that Spore is coming out in 2007. The message that we are getting from [Electronic Arts] corporate is "Don't screw it up," which is great. What they mean is, "Lets get it right." This will be the game's last E3.
 * GameSpy: So it will come out in the first quarter of 2007?
 * WW: Probably just after that, though we are not being precise. What we are saying is just outside the fiscal year, which is March.
 * GameSpy: So April or early May?
 * WW: Yeah. Right.

So I say it should be changed to April or early May 2007, from the man himself. Chris M. 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot
That screenshot was helpful to the article. Why was it taken away? 216.37.227.202 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor Order
I rearranged the order of the editors. I know they were in alphabetical order, but the creature editor should come first because (1) it is the main editor and (2) the building editor, which was previously before it, refers to it in its explanation. I moved the hut editor to directly below the building editor because it is very similar to it. Please object accordingly. 66.87.91.36 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Computer Gaming World Exclusive Preview
Are we allowed to quote from it in the article? I'm not sure how those fancy laws work, but it's this month's issue.
 * Quotes are allowed as long as it's a snippit and you give a source. Havok (T/C) 07:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this accurate
"This is apparently the final step before you lose control of your civilization. As soon as you build the UFO, you take direct control of it, and thats what you will have until you get bored of the game or stop for another reason, so make sure you are ready." I know in the demo Will Wright did use the UFO for the rest of the demo when he go it. But it doesn't seem to be accurate that you lose contorl of you entire civiltion once you get it. He did also show you building colonies on other planets and I think I was reading somthing where he said that you can unlock the creture editor again.--Scott3 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Scrap it. Will's presentation suggests that you continue as part of your civilization, as evidenced from his civ being attacked by the other that he assaults. This won't be solidly explainable until the game's release. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I deleted it, with a comment referring to this talk page. DrIdiot 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Some wild speculation
I know the games in developement, but making statements like "if your species is solitary it will lay and egg and if its social you will need to find a mate" is just a wild guess, its reasonable to expect that if you need to find a mate as one species, you need to find a mate as any species.

Also any species that developes intelligence will most likely be social so all player species may be social. Also from one of the mroe recent spore vids i saw (featuring robbin williams) when you use your "DNA" points to create an updated version of yuor creature, you start off after editing it playing as an infant.
 * I agree with all of that, the first quote should be changed, there is no reference to asexual reproduction (or at least symbolizing that) in Spore, so you'll always need a mate when you get past the tide pool phase. 65.185.197.175 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually got rid of that one statement about the nature of reproduction in teh creature phase, saying as I haven't heard ANY official news about asexual reproduction among evolved creatures outside of this one speculative line. I mentioned the rumour though, to be fair. 24.64.223.204 20:43, 22 May 2006

Platforms
I'm amused to see Spore is now confirmed for mobile phones; how about the other PC platforms such as linux or mac? With the spread of platforms it's confirmed for I'm surprised they aren't mentioned or rumoured at all, either for or against. I'd be surprised if they've gone to the extent to making it work on phone screens - low-power, low-res, multiple nonstandard OSes - without having done anything for linux and mac too... any information? -User:Firien §
 * I would deduct that they would use the mobile phone version for the cards which you collect on the PC version. Havok (T/C/c) 10:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rumours is all we have - nothing concrete, though there's a fairly large movement on the gamingsteve forums to pressure for a Mac version. --163.1.136.47 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will wright said that they are talking to Asyper about porting Spore, since that's who they used to por the sims. They are looking into it, and I'd consider it likely that it'll get to mac at some point.  When is the question though.  Chris M. 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archival
This talk page is getting pretty long. Should we archive older sections of it? --163.1.136.47 18:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we could archive some of the older bits, like impressions, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Robovski 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done
 * -- Andreas Blixt 00:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks! Robovski 02:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Childish behavior
The constant link-changing back and forth is really a waste of time for a lot of people. Is there no way to block the page from edits by "non-trusted" (not in an administered list) editors? Or at least non-registered users (IPs)? Or, if none of those options are available, request an administrator to lock it from everybody for a while to let things cool down. In any case, the current behavior is detrimental to this article.

-- Andreas Blixt 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, this is what I mean: Template:sprotected
 * -- Andreas Blixt 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Andreas Blixt 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Semi-Protection is useful sometimes, if it's been left on for a very short period. See Pro-Test for an example of where it helped prevent vandalism. However, is it really appropriate here? We can simply revert changes. Only when the vandalism is exceptionally frequent is there any real need for semi-protection in my opinion. --163.1.136.97 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (Oh - and to clarify - the IP addresses in the range 163.1.136.xx are all me, as my laptop is broken and therefore I can't use my usual IP address.)


 * Is it possible or reasonable to put a ban on all links to fansites? --24.145.160.174 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That last message was mine but I didn't know I wasn't logged in --Ryuukuro 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is an opportunity to let things cool down for a bit and to get on with the work at hand. The article itself needs a lot of work, and while a lot of material has been added since E3, I think some of it doesn't really belong in the article here (more suited to SporeWiki) or isn't well written. I think in a month or two things will be calmer and some of the buzz will have died down and we won't have the dozen plus attempts to add a fansite onto the article every day. Additionally, we recently had our first blanking, and there has been some other bits of vandalism. It's hard to say how long we should have this 'protected state' but I'm certainly for it for now. Robovski 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gamespy article
The gamespy article here lists a June 2007 release date. The latest news we have received "officially" was from another gamespy article:

In this GameSpy article, Wright supports the above.


 * WW: We're saying that Spore is coming out in 2007. The message that we are getting from [Electronic Arts] corporate is "Don't screw it up," which is great. What they mean is, "Lets get it right." This will be the game's last E3.
 * GameSpy: So it will come out in the first quarter of 2007?
 * WW: Probably just after that, though we are not being precise. What we are saying is just outside the fiscal year, which is March.
 * GameSpy: So April or early May?
 * WW: Yeah. Right.

That news isn't exactly old. Will Wright assured that there wouldn't be another E3 for this game. I don't see why a retailer (EB) listing of a game release date should be taken as more official then the release date said from the guy making it. Video game retailers are notorious for throwing up bogus release dates for sales, there is no real reason to believe that over what will said. So I think that line should be switched back to the April or early may comment. Chris M. 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts over the June date as well. I read the source article referenced, and I get a real impression of something not right about the dates. But then my hunch isn't anything to overthrow a reference over. Gamesspot is pretty decent for game stuff, but I can't help but wonder why the DS version would be available before the PC version, especially since it was being demoed on a PC at E3. If the dates were reversed, I'd see that as more plausible, but then we already new that the March 2007 date wasn't going to happen from the EA press release before E3. That leaves me thinking that your guess is as good as mine. The cited WW reference (that you quote above) gives the impression of April/May 2007 which fits with the EA press release (not this fiscal year) but then again a date of June 2007 would as well. Its not implausible for the date to be wrong (heck the Amazon(uk) site has it for preorder for January 2007, rather obviously wrong at this point), however the quoted reference is the most recent material we have to work with, and he's quoted the conservative end of the dates, so I suppose we should just go along with it until we hear otherwise in the future. Robovski 14:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt about gamespot for being a valid source for info. But they didn't get in from some inside maxis (or EA) source.  Their info came straight from EB, as trustworthy a source gamespot is, if they get their info from a game retailer it should be in doubt.  They have no real reason to state a true date and I dont' really think we have a reason to expect they are right.  If it wasn't for the fact that I have pre-ordered a lot of games and had the retailer switch the release date (because their guess was wrong) I'd trust EB on this, but since that has happened (to many peopel I'm sure), I think it's fair to trust WW on his 2 week old statement. Chris M. 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose we could disregard the Gamespy article and go with the WW interview seeing as thier basis is EB, and pre-release dates from retailers are notoriously bad (like the Amazon date I mentioned). Unless you want to "Be Bold", I think we should get one of the other editors to agree before we go ahead and change back to April/May 2007. Robovski 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was bold and I changed it :). Chris M. 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Change to June 2007
Speculation From a 3rd party retailer is hardly solid material to change the release date to June 2007 just weeks after a different date was given by maxis. Should it be changed back?-Sgore 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in the section above. Yes, I agree that it should not say "June 2007" as well. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

Sorry. Must have missed that.-Sgore 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Spore Template
As no one can be bothered to, I have copied the Spore hyped template from the spore wiki site, so if you are ridiculusly hyped about spore, there is the link. There are others, but i'll let you all find them on the spore wiki, although if you actually like Spore, you will want that template, and no other... Garfunkle20 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Garfunkle20

questions
Will there be cool voclanos and other activities on planets? How does an underwater society develop fire teĉnology to warm up? Can you make tree-dwelling species?--Sonjaaa 17:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Volcanoes, yes (this is in one of the videos). They've said nothing on your other questions. I don't even know where you're getting the "fire technology to warm up" thing from, since there's no indication of whether that's a normal research item. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are concept images about improving technology to make better fire (or fire pits) but that was old and we haven't seen much about it although it seems that something like that is likely. How this will translate underwater is beyond me, but they said underwater civs are possible.  Tree civs haven't been mentioned in any form though. Chris M. 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Add to article
Please add this to the (semiprotected) article ... i cant :(
 * Spore (Computerspiel)

Thanks, --Nyks2k 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Conti|&#9993; 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Faulty information
Under the section "Creature Stage" it says "When you first move to another generation, you start life as a baby of your race. You must find other children and group together so that you can hunt some food." This not true, you can group up in any age. I have seen several examples in demonstration videos that adult creatures can do this too. It is also not a requirement to do this when in control of a baby creature.

BmB23 - Wikipedia non-user user. I.e. Not registered.
 * Agreed. It's never been specifically states that you must do it. This might be fine with a rewording though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition to "Massively Singleplayer" section
This edit seems dubious. I've heard nothing that got that specific on how the database and such will work; the closest was that a player can "bookmark" another player to recieve more content from them. Can anyone provide a source, or should this be removed? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first talk, Wright does talk about how content will be "rated" by the system by seeing how popular it is. He doesn't go into any more detail that I know of, and (in that video) certainly doesn't say anything about who or how many people will get what "unrated" content. (I naturally figured it would be semi-random, or that it would provide stuff that is similar to your existing stuff in style, like everything else.) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "This system will deliver content to the players based on a popularity basis, the central spore server will distribute content to a few players, see if they like it and if they do raise its rank for distribution to all players. This will allow users who find the editors hard will be able to easily get good content if they are unable to produce it themselves."


 * I'm fairly confident that it is PARTIALLY based on a popularity basis. If more people say they like a certain piece of content it will be uploaded in general more often.  So if it was changed to "... to the players partially based on ..." then I'd suggest putting it in there, and give it some time to have a source provided.  I'm sure it was said and elaborated upon SOMEWHERE, I'll just have to find the source, and isn't the fact tag given a week or something anyway?  Chris M. 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the reader in an article
As per WP:MOS, the reader should not be referenced directly in an article. Could someone please remove all instances of "you" or "your" and replace it with "the player"? -205.251.80.95 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've begun reworking the sections (they're very badly laid out right now) and have finished the tide pool, creature and tribal phase sections. I'll continue with the other sections later if noone else wants to help out.
 * – Andreas Blixt   ☺  20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been doing the same, in regards to the replacement of 'You' with 'The player' (at least in the 'Summary' section). I even caught one of my *own* edits that got missed!  DarkMasterBob 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. E946 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Release date (again)
It hasn't been confirmed... I've checked everywhere. You guys know that Will Wright has no say in when it's released right? It's all down to EA. I've checked the following places and non of them give a date, only TBA or Q1 2007. Even Gamespy, who did the interview say TBA 2007.
 * To The Game.com
 * Gamespot
 * IGN.com
 * Gamespy

Please stop reading the months, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Havok (T/C/c) 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally sorry. I didn't realize this was a recurring issue. I just saw a fact tag for statement referring to something Will Wright said in GameSpy and added the link. I didn't see anything wrong with it, as it seemed to me that Will would have some knowledge of what EA was thinking. If you felt that way, I'm thinking you should've just deleted it outright, and maybe added a comment or something for future editors to read. I didn't know any better. My bad. Dancter 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it was you who added it, a lot of Anonymous' keep re-adding it. Hopefully it will stop now. It was never my intent to sound mad or anything. Havok (T/C/c) 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Has it been similar to the stuff with the release date for Wii and all the launch titles? If so, I totally understand. While I've been interested in Spore for a while, this is the first time I've even glanced at the Wikipedia article, so I don't really know what's been going on here. Dancter 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just watch the page, most likely you'll see what I mean. Havok (T/C/c) 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, from EA's own press release before E3 2006, amongst other things Spore was confirmed as not being released this fiscal year - which means not before (at the earliest) April 2006 will the game be released. EA are the people in control of publication, I take that as a very trustworthy source (which I have referenced before when we last talked about this). WW's interview at E3 states April or May - which jives with the EA press release (in as much as they don't contradict each other). Fiscal Q1 2007 looks to be correct, but avarage readers aren't going to understand the difference between fiscal and calendar quarters, at least IMO. I will defer if you folks want to do this some other way, but I consider April or May 2007 is the best bet so far and the most informative. Robovski 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as Havok would probably affirm, unless a trusted source explicitly affirms, "April-May 2007", the release window you mention counts as original research, and can't justifiably be included. And from what I'm hearing, at least with respect to a release date, Will Wright doesn't count. Dancter 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering the entire article is speculation on a game that will hopefully someday be published, it's a little hard to avoid the sythesis arguement. All we have are the statements from those involved and the demonstration movies, and this information is subject to change. The best we can do is try to keep abreast of new information as it becomes available. I do not consider my changes to be "vandalism" as so nicely put in the edit commentary, but I will defer to "TBA 2007" as it does not conflict with any of teh recent statements. Robovski 00:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't see any problem with collecting all the different information on a release. We just can't synthesize it into new information. I'm basically deferring to the editors who've been around this article a little longer for now, so don't take anything I've said as a definitive personal stance. Dancter 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but the publisher itself has said after this fiscal year which means they expect it not to be released before april, how is that original research? You can revert and call it vandalism but it simply is not vandalism regardless. Remember Assume Good Faith. If we aren't going to be trusting publishers for release dates for games, when will we be able to remove the "To be announced" label? When someone is holding the game? It has been announced and Will Wright has made statements backing up EAs statements, April or early May is only slightly less likely to be true then Q1 2007 and really not at all less likely to be true then TBA 2007, but it is quite a bit of a lot more informative of the actual nature of the game in development. I really don't see how putting TBA 2007 is any more reliable then anything else we could have, and it's much less useful. Chris M. 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Has the publisher said that? Like I said, I'm new to this article. It seems okay to include that in the article text if it's properly cited. Readers should have the information to conclude for themselves a likely release. Concerning what is listed in the infobox, though, it would seem to me that the most official stated release take precedence over the most likely, yet unofficial release. Dancter 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was me who mentioned the original research, but I didn't say anything about vandalism. I just wanted to make that clear. Dancter 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it wasn't you who said vandalism, it was in Havok's edit note (see history of the main article if you'd like). The game is an announced title in that it was at E3 in 2005 and 2006, and EA says it will not be at E3 2007. EA has said it will not be release this fiscal year, this is fact, and from the publisher in a press release/conference back in March. No release date has been set, just that it will not be release this fiscal year. There's lots of bad info out there (Amazon.co.uk is still clinging to January 2007, lot of people used to show November 2007, but these are contradicted by EA's statement to the contrary). As for being around, I'd say that Saxifrage, Consumed Crustacean, Mason and myself are quite a few of the "Usual Suspects" around these parts. That doesn't mean we are the be-all and end-all of the Spore wikipedia article. I'm just one editor here, and so are you. I feel April/May 2007 is more informative to the person who is comming to the article to find out about Spore, and I've given my reasons for standing by those dates. Certainly I will want to update that information as soon as we have new information (like an actual release date), but don't feel that just because you are new you a: can't be right or b: we can't be wrong. Consensus is the best thing, and I'm willing to go by TBA 2007 as "non-original" if that's how you feel. I certainly don't want to be feeding the article with my bias, and it could well end up being later than May (but this would mean E3 2007 would pass but Spore wouldn't be featured - unless EA changed it's mind in the meantime). Maybe some of you other folks can settle on what we want to say for now, and I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. Robovski 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about saying that there is no confirmed release date but that there is a lot of speculation, and then say what the speculations have been? Mention that EA has said not before next fiscal year and they won't present it at E3 2007. Dump the info on the reader and let them sort it out. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. A small paragraph explaining the confusion here and giving a few possible scenarios is going to tell people a lot more about the release than just "TBA". E946 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The main reason I mentioned my newness was as a way to say that I have read very little on the game, and certainly haven't involved myself in any research on it. I haven't even read the past the first section of the article. I'll get around to it eventually, but I don't feel I'm going to have much to say until I do. The only input I've made on this date debate is based on discussions for the Wii article on its release date, which I am familiar with. Nintendo's current official stance is Q4 2006, but various statements have been made saying before Thanksgiving, in time for holiday, November 6, etc. The consensus was that many of the differing statments on the release date could be included in the article text, as long as they were contextualized, but the line in the infobox would only have the most official date. Dancter 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the game is not listed on EA.com yet, nothing is final (search for spore on EA.com "There are no games that start with : spore"). Remember that release dates are not final until a press release is released with a date, or the official site gives a date. And why should we include a month when no one else does so? Some of the most respected and notable websites has it as TBA or Q1 2007. Why should we, an Encyclopedia of fact, include information which is pure speculation until something more concrete is given?

And yes, it is vandalisme if you add something which clearly is false information. There is no need to even include a date or explanation it in the article. This is a encyclopedia, not a news site, and we should work with facts, and the facts right now state that there is no definite release date before EA says so. Between january and may isn't a release date, it's a proximity, which might end up being false. Havok (T/C/c) 06:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's vanadlism, there's no e on the end. Secondly, it's not clearly false, it the best we have based on the sources we have available. You had Q1 2007, which is contradicted by EA's own statement here: http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=88189&eventID=1306810 which states the game will not be released in this fiscal year. I don't call you a vandal, I call you wrong. I have assumed on good faith that you are acting in good faith, the least you could do is act in the same manner. Its called (and spelled) manners. And the fact that you can't find information on Spore from EA would indicate that you lake the needed skills to update information on an article you seem to know little about. I note from your talk page that I am not the only user to disagree with an edit you have made - did you call them vandals too? Robovski 23:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, I will follow good faith, if you follow Wikipedia civil. Havok (T/C/c) 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to escalate this. It's only a date, in a relatively insignificant article in an encyclopedia that, in the larger scheme of things, is not really that big a deal. Soon enough the speculation will evaporate in the harsh light of actual information and this will all be history. So, let us all stop tossing around vandalism (and take a look at the "Mistakes" subheading under Vandalism), get ourselves a big mug of good faith, and move on.
 * So, does anyone else want to comment on what we ought to put there? I had a suggestion a few paragraphs back. Let's start there and see what we come up with. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit heated - I was reacting harshly instead of being constructive. I said I would defer to the consensus re:TBA 2007 and I will. But we could add material to the article iteself as proposed to elaborate on the information we have re: the release date. OK, so what do we know:
 * EA says the game will not be released in fiscal 2006.
 * EA says the game will not be at E3 2007
 * WW has said publically we should see the game in April or May 2007
 * Lots of retailers have other dates.
 * What else do we know and what should we say? I'm for laying out the facts so readers can do their own synthesis until we have a firm date or better information. Robovski 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that course of action, but I really think that April or May 2007 is the overall combination of hte most factual, beneficial, and clear answers we can give to the "when will it be released?" question and the most official statement (from EAs financial statement) doesn't contradict it. Chris M. 07:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But for Wikipedia to endorse that as the truth, we actually need a reliable source that says it is the truth that is reliable and sure enough to overturn all the uncertainty introduced by the other stuff floating around. We don't quite have that, though what we have is close. Regardless, we're still not allowed to spoon-feed the reader and synthesise facts for their consumption. See my suggestion below for a best-practices way of resolving all this. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 07:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to jam that all together in a piece of prose, stick it in a "Release date" section, and make the release date in the infobox a link to the section that reads (See below) or something like. The section might read:
 * There is much speculation and confusion about the release date for Spore. As of [date] no official release date has been announced, though Will Wright has said in interviews[cite] that it will be released in April or May 2007. Electronic Arts, the publisher, has said only that Spore will not be released in the 2006 fiscal year and that they will not be showing the game at E3 2007.[cite] As of [date], many retailers are listing specific release dates: Amazon lists the release date as January 2007[cite], [etc, etc with any others we know of]. Several web sites devoted to Spore list the release date as November 2006.[cite]
 * Something like that would report the ongoing confusion, speculation, and contradictions to the satisfaction of most readers without forcing Wikipedia to commit to stating information we just don't have. And, the few left who insist on inserting their version of the truth will be few enough that it won't be such a hassle anymore. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 07:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, as long as we don't speculate on the date other then stating that there is some confusion. It was never my intent to never include anything about the date, but we must be careful so as to not further confuse everyone. Havok (T/C/c) 07:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't think I was making myself clear before, based on Chris M.'s reaction to my original research comment. And I think the "(see below)" idea works even better than my idea. Dancter 14:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since new people are still screwing around with the date, I'm just going to dump my proposed section into the article and link to it from the infobox. Someone please come along behind me and add some references and links where they're necessary. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Spore (biology)
I'm sure most of you have searched for Spore and ended up with the scientific Spore. I think things could be made easier by having Spore redirect to a disambiguation page, and the current Spore be turned into Spore (biology). Discuss on Talk: Spore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmoocow (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not going to bother posting there since consensus has been reached, but I'm strongly opposed to this. Spore is an awesome game and WILL get A LOT of attention, but wikipedia isn't made for pushing out a biology article (or just moving it) because a video game article has the same title.  Besides the fact that very little actually links here in comparison, I don't see a reason to do the move. Chris M. 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Someone added a direct link to the top anyways (for the video game Spore, see Spore (video game)), which I think is a perfect compromise. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plenty of people will be looking for the game info, but more people will be looking for info on spores themselves. The link at the top of the article is a very good compromise. Robovski 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Robin Williams Link
I went ahead and removed the youtube video link of Robin Williams. That video has since been taken down for copyright infringement. Synystar 13:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reptiles and Insects
Every creature seems to be a reptile or an insect - even the swimming animals. I have yet to see:


 * Feathered animals
 * Furry animals
 * Flying animals
 * Scaled swimming animals

Also, why is EVERY creature an egglayer?


 * I think you've mistaken this for a fan forum. You might have more luck by going to one of the fan sites linked at the bottom of the article. This page is for discussing ways to improve the Wikipedia article, not for discussing the game itself in general. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have mistaken this for a fan forum, but I might as well answer. Feathered furry and scaled animals are all possible (and the willosaur was scaled for example) through the texture section of the creature editor.  Flying animals were definitly possible at GDC '05, but may or may not still exist in the game as of E3 '06. Chris M. 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He (/she) didn't necessarily mistake this for anything. The tab at the top of the page says "Discussion" not "Discussion about how we should edit this wikipedia article but no discussion whatsoever about the subject of the article on penalty of EXCOMMUNICATION".  (I'm kidding, but the interface could stand to be clearer.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet that information (existance of feathered, furry, etc, etc) is not in the article, and therefore, people might be wondering about whether such creatures will be included. IE. There's nothing about flying creatures, and there was never any hint of it that I could see from the videos I've seen. JAF1970 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current edition of PC Gamer (UK) supposedly has a post-play article on Spore in which they made a character with wings so it could fly. I'll see if I can lay my hands on it - I'm dubious about the claim of having played the game outside of a demo environment. Robovski 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see the expansion now - Spore: Flying, Fur and Fun! JAF1970 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Online or Offline?
"If there is a lack of predators in the ecosystem and weak herbivores are everywhere, the game will automatically download a new race of predators that another player has created and load them into the currently playing player's world."

If it's a massive SINGLE PLAYER game how is the game supposed to download new predators from "another player"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.227.133 (talk • contribs).


 * It doesn't download them from another player, per se. It downloads them from a library server, to which the game automatically uploads all players' creatures and buildings.  This library is then accessed when you visit other planets or what have you and the planet is populated with stuff that other people have created during their playing. --142.68.220.135 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's single-player in the sense that you never interact with other players. But it is still networked ("online"), and it will use the creations of other players connected to the network to fill out the niches in your game world. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally. It's online, but you can't play against other people, just their creatures. -Garfunkle20 10:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that if you aren't online it can still download creatures from the game's CD Xander 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Recent Edit
The citation for this phrase - "Wright said "I didn't want to make players feel like Luke Skywalker or Frodo Baggins. I wanted them to be like George Lucas or J.R.R. Tolkien." is from his 2005 Game Developer's Conference video, which can be found on google video, here. Although if someone could find a written source, that would be beter. --Garfunkle20 09:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed uncited "weasel word" release date sentence
FYI, I removed the following sentence from release date: Some people have reported that Electonic Arts has condcted a meeting and has announced that the game will be released January 15, 2007.

The reason I removed this is because 1) it isn't cited, and 2) it uses the weasel word phrasing "Some people..." without saying specifically who is reporting this.

Mind you, I'm not saying the sentence is necessarilly false. I'm saying that it should be replaced by a sentence that says specifically WHO is reporting the details of this alleged meeting and include a verifiable reference. Otherwise it's just an unverified rumor. Dugwiki 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)