Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 20

frequent crashes noteworthy?
i guess we'll have to wait til a "verifiable source" mentions it, but if you look at the official british spore sub-forum on the EA forums it seems that the game has quite a few problems with crashing and looking for a non-existent driver. i'd add something about it to the article, but the article is protected and i'm sure that my addition would get deleted for being "original research" or something.99.153.29.112 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Forums are not reliable sources and cannot be used to cite material on wikipedia. If Maxis makes a statement or reliable sources start writing about it then it can be included.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * which is why i said "i guess we'll have to wait til a verifiable source mentions it".99.153.29.112 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The GameSpot review says that the game "ran smoothly at the highest settings without a single crash", and the IGN (US) reviewer said "it ran smoothly on my admittedly high-end system, and it was rock-solid stable, never crashing. I can't even think of a single bug", but IGN UK said "the total lack of an autosave is infuriating and bewildering in this kind of game. It's not a huge issue in the early, briefer stages, but a random, one-off crash during the space stage cost us four hours of progress. There were tears." I haven't read every Spore review out there, but I haven't yet seen a big-name reviewer dealing with a consistent crash either.  A sticky poll in those UK forums says that the problems are mainly in the Space stage.  --an odd name 21:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah if you look at those forums now there's several pages of "game crashes randomly" and "game won't run". i can't wait til US consumers get a chance to not play the game lol. oh yeah and there's this to: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/spore-technical-support/335538-ea-do-something-about.html currently it only has 189 votes, but all but 17 of them are in favor of EA releasing a patch to fix the errors. 99.153.29.112 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I picked up the game recently, so far i haven't had a few problems except for random frame rate jitters and I fixed that perfectly..I feel lucky.209.169.244.29 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * when i tried to move from tribal stage to civilization stage the game crashed, every time i tried to move on to the civ stage it just dumped me back out to the desktop, however i was able to start a game in civ phase on another planet and that planet is currently a space faring civilization and i have not had any problems with the game since. and on the first planet my chieftain had been abducted midway through the tribal stage and i never got a new one, so i'm thinking that may be part of the problem (although i can't be sure) i guess i'll find out when i get a second planet through tribal stage. the funny thing is, according to my system specs i shouldn't even be able to run the game, but so far i've only had it crash on that one part.99.153.29.112 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The space phase (the last phase you don't get to after several hours game play) frequently crashes, I've been playing the space phase for about 10 hours and had at least 20 crashes so far. All the crashes occurred when you are zooming in on a solar system and for those who don't know, that's basically all you do when you're trading, building an empire or protecting it. It's how you get around. The reason EA Games isn't stating there is a problem is because then we CAN post it here and less people purchase the game. I submitted a support request and an automated response stated, and I quote: "Due to the recent release and amazing popularity of Spore, we are experiencing higher than normal e-mail volume." I love how they turn ZOMG overwhelming support requests into ZOMG our game RULES! As a side note my computer is quite good, quite expensive and running XP without overclocking. No other problems. As a side note the help that comes with the DVD version of Spore tells you do run certain things that it never installed, for instance under the heading of "Electronic_Arts_Technical_Support.htm" -> "Crashing After a Full Black Screen" "Click the Check for Update or Auto-Update icon (This will force the game to check for updates.)" and please note it never installed that icon. 207.224.26.147 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
 * I've played it probably around 20 hours and haven't had a single crash. This is why anecdotal evidence can't be used in articles.--Crossmr (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you been playing the space phase for 20 hours actively zooming to and from planets?207.224.26.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Yes I have. How else could you play the space age? I've played 2 species to the space age, the first one for about 5 hours in the space age, the other one for about 15. In that time I've terraformed tons of planets, done a lot of eradication missions, improved a lot of planets, lots of zooming. Not a single crash.--Crossmr (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got the DVD version from Amazon.com, a Geforce 8600GT, an Intel Duo processor and running the fully upgraded/patched version of XP. I don't have problems like this in any other game and I far exceeds the minimum specifications. I have seen numerous complaints about crashing as well (just noticed a few that suggest I kill the EA Download Manager so I'll try that next).67.42.234.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Looks like the crashes no longer occur, 10 hours of game play without a single crash. Looks like they found the error and fixed it for now. 70.56.195.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

I've been watching the technical forum very closely since Spore came out and helping people with problems I see recurrently. (Username Ryuujin on the forum), and I can tell you spore is extremely buggy game, I have not suffered any really serious errors but I have still encountered no less than 8 (some game breaking) issues firsthands. Common problems include the graphics cache generated from the data files becoming corrupted forcing the player to reset the cache manually. Spore only has a single savegame file, and it routinely gets corrupted on some less stable computer configurations so people often lose their entire game unless they manually back up the save game (Stored in the documents and settings folder, not even accessible if you lack admin level access to the PC), there is several recurrent game breaking bugs; most notable occurs VERY regularly where the players Shaman character in tribal phase is rendered uncontrllable preventing any non-violent conclusions to the phase. While these bugs arn't reeeallly any more numerous when in put into eprspectvie than any other new release, most these features of Spore have been functional since the 2005 demonstration and you'd think 3 years was plenty of time to iron out such obvious and easy to find bugs. Ryuujin --85.62.18.8 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats anecdotal evidence and unfortunately not reliable and can't be used to create content in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't expect you to use that as any kind of wiki material, I figured it might help you narrow down published articles to more specific recurrent things like graphics cache issues, savegame corruption etc. rather than the more generic "spore crashes a lot" which isn't much use for an article. Ryuujin --85.62.18.8 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User revolt over DRM
Not sure what the policy on references is, but Ars Technica has a story covering the recent protests on Amazon.com's review page related to the SecuRom DRM software and it's policies. Here is a link to the story: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080908-gamers-fight-back-against-lackluster-spore-gameplay-bad-drm.html It sounds, to me, like a note-worthy issue to mention but, again, I don't know if Ars Technica qualifies as a good source. Someone more knowledgeable than me should make that decision and, if acceptable, should craft a sentence/paragraph describing the issue, Thanks. -colecoman1982 12.32.89.121 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The author of the peice is Ben Kuchera, a Journalist who writes for the Washinton Post and ABC News amongst others. His work is already used as reference in 20 other Wikipedia articles. Condé Nast Publications owns Ars Technica and this site is currently used as reference in 343 Wikipedia Articles. Given that so many references already exist from this source I would say that this would make a relivent source for this article. However, maybe someone else may think differently. Munta (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While this hasn't been picked up by any reputable sources that I can find yet, Amazon UK appear to be sporadically removing bad reviews from the Spore page. Weather blatent preasure from EA or just misdirected management on Amazons behalf, its only a matter of time before this gets picked up. This is begining to look like a potential PR disaster for EA. Watch this space Munta (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch this space? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a lot of things, including a soapbox, a news paper, or a vehicle for social change.--Crossmr (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is why I placed it in the talk page. This is an ongoing and evolving situation so i'm just giving a heads up to people of information that may warrent inclusion in this article in the near future. Munta (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'a protest was "staged"' Why use the word staged? That makes it sound like this was planned. Is it verified as a planned protest? I was under the impression that it was more of a flash-mob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.4.22 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just found some articles on Yahoo, not sure if they are from a good source. First one is about a possible patch to sort out the DRM http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-ea-to-ease-spore-s-drm-restrictions-e870a33.html and the other is about user created creatures protesting about the DRM http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080916/ttc-spore-fans-in-uproar-create-drm-prot-e870a33.html I am new so I will let others decide if the information is useful for the article 205.204.2.15 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just been on the spore website and a patch is out, only for PC so far, no sign of the drm patch in my links above though Dark verdant (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was on the spore forums and someone posted a link to a very interesting article on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7628962.stm looks like the 3 downloads may be increased to 5 and also allowing users to create 5 accounts per game rather than 1. Will someone more adept at editing like to insert any of the important info into the article unless of course none of it is deemed noteworthy of course. Ta! Dark verdant (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant Intalls not downloads! Me so stupid! Dark verdant (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

other reviewers
i havent seen any of his reviews on wikipedia yet, but would it be appropriate to add in Yahtzee Crawshaw's review of Spore from his "Zero punctuation" show? Im asking because his reviews have been known to contain adult refrences, so would it be ok to add it into an article about an E rated game? SSBBchamp (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think a satirical review belongs in the reviews sections. ^_^. Unless you had intended it be placed elsewhere? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Spore is E10, not E. Second, Yahtzee's as serious a reviewer of video games as Jack Thompson is as serious a defender of them. I believe you might want to look at Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl or its archives to see a similar discussion on Yahtzee. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I just see you stating over and over again that at first you don't think the escapist is a reliable source, but then you can't say why. When you can't explain why you move on to claiming that the review isn't meant to be serious and when asked to provide proof of that you don't. Sorry I don't see anything on there that would state that the review is not a reliable source. If there is editorial oversight from a professional publication, its a reliable source for his opinion, just as ANY review is a reliable source for that reviewers opinion. Frankly Yahtzee is probably one of the more popular and notable reviewers currently which doesn't remotely make his opinion undue weight.--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"expanded Cell Editor an Beta Flora Editor"
Someone Put text in the Artcle in the Editors section saying that There is a Beta Flora Editor Plus an Expanded Cell editor, and all you needed to do is change the shortcut parameters. But there's one Question, WHERE'S THE PROOF???

Clearly this user didn't cite a resource, so what do we do about this??? DinoHunter2 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)DinoHunter2
 * It's been proved. I believe it was found on the official Spore forums. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line  06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about backing up your proof with some information or evidence. — Suzumebachi (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are already present in Spore itself. You simply run the spore executable using the -state:CellEditor or -state:FloraEditor command line. The Beta flora editor is pretty much unusable, the Cell editor I havn't checked to see if it's capable of saving its creations (They'd likely be unusable anyway since you can't preselect your cell) --85.62.18.8 (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can save your creations using the extended cell editor. However, you can't share them or edit them outside of the extended cell editor itself. So it's pretty useless. Pyritie (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

HTML showing on actual page...
When I visisted the page, I found out that the "Describing Box" (As I call it) was HTML... on the actual page!--Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Backward Evolution?
In Spore, in order to evolve, you pick up parts left behind from what looks like a pile of bones (i.e. an extinct creature). That doesn't quite fit in with the nature of evolution. Obviously, if the body part had been effective, the creature would not have become extinct. Just doesn't quite make sense. Other than that a great game, but is this sort of "reverse evolution" worth metnioning in the article? 209.137.182.35 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless reliable sources are raising it as an issue. No.--Crossmr (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree. The game does not reflect "reverse evolution" (or real evolution for that matter) at all.--210.4.37.23 (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting info on Flora Creator
I've put in a bit of info in the Creaotrs section about how the flora creator can be accesed, I might not have done a very good job though so could sombody fix it up a little please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckdudetom (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Add-on Packs
Two new add-on packs have been mentioned on the Spore website, cute and scary parts pack which is think is out in November and a space stage pack too out in 2009. Was going to update yesterday but didnt have time and I can't look at the Spore website at work. Does someone want to add a section for this? Dark verdant (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should expansions be under its own heading? It is currently under licensing which may well be the correct place for it but looking at the contents list it does not appear so people want to have a quick look at the article for this purpose will not know there is a section for it. I only mention this as someone added a section for the expansions even though there already is one, may reduce confusion and double entry of information in the future. Dark verdant (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's the beginning of a page at Spore:_Creepy_and_Cute_Parts which IMHO should be merged into the main article, though I agree the main article's getting a little long. --Wiml (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Two new critique pages
Two new critique pages have shown up, Flunking Spore from Sciencemag.org, and the linked wikipage Spore Biology (Science Guild). --68.81.70.65 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Science controversy
Shouldn't the Spore wikipedia entry include the current controversy over its alleged misuse of science and scientists?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5901/531b

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/23/217208

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/42509/Spore-Gets-An-F-From-Scientists

That seems relevant. I certainly think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofdaworld (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call this a controversy: it's rather a funny article about a videogame in a game magazine. The "Gonzo scientist" column in which it was published deals with light subjects, such as "Can scientists dance ?" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5865/905b). The article has been taken a bit out of context by various game sites and slashdot. I don't think it is very relevant as a "controversy". Cochonfou (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Did you read the article? Science (the journal) asked 4 scientists to play Spore and grade it on its scientific merits. That's no more "light" than the game itself, surely. Take a look and see what you think. What it comes down to is that Spore's marketing campaign has the underlying message that the game is based on science. This review proved that to be false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofdaworld (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While it might be worth mentioning in the article I have to agree that it is certainly not a controversy. Just because the game isn't scientifically accurate, it doesn't mean it is controversial. They don't even use the word controversy in the articles. -Zomic13 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its also one article, not worth mentioning as anything beyond a single sentence in the reception section, assuming we even take it to be a serious criticism of the game. Giving it anything more is a violation of WP:NPOV under undue weight.--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So let's not present it as a controversy. I added a section about John Bohannon's review but not about the National Geographic documentary.  We discuss the historical accuracy of novels that have historical settings.  Why not the scientific accuracy of a computer game with a scientific gimmick?Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its one article, as I said it violates WP:NPOV under undue weight to give it any more coverage than any other review of the game. I'll ask you to self-revert and include it as a sentence in the reception section. We don't give single opinions whole sections unto themselves unless that opinion has been significantly covered by reliable sources (to which slashdot, digg, etc are not)--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the NPOV portions of the section. Perhaps this would be NPOV: Undue Weight if this were a traditional game review, but it isn't.  They're not talking about whether or not the game is good; they're talking about whether it's scientifically accurate. Think of it as a separate question.
 * It's more like looking at the historical accuracy of a novel. Literary criticism and historical criticism are two different things  A novel can be a brilliant piece of artwork, fantastically received as literature, and still have iffy accuracy.  A novel can be beautifully researched and still get poor reviews for its characters and writing.  Whether or not a game is well-constructed, artistic, innovative, and fun to play is one thing.  Whether or not it's scientifically or historically accurate is another.  When the players wonder whether the science in Spore is real, they will come here and it will not necessarily occur to them to look for the opinion of the scientific community mixed in with the opinion of the gaming community.  As for sources, Science is one of the most respected journals in the U.S.  If that's not a reliable source, then I don't know what is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if its a traditional game review. its still just a single article which reviews the content of the game. The article is a reliable source, I said we don't give single articles/opinions a section to themselves unless that article has been significantly covered by reliable sources (e.g. lots of reliable sources are citing it, commenting on it, etc). Giving it a section to itself violates WP:NPOV. The proper inclusion level is a sentence in the reception area to the nature of: Science magazine found that several aspects of the game were scientifically inaccurate and scored the game poorly [citation].--Crossmr (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a sentence would not satisfy a reader looking for information regarding the scientific accuracy of the game. It's something that people will want to know and should have its own section or subsection.  Let's let the others weigh in on this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT under wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a truth factory, or a bunch of other things. We don't give extraordinary coverage to something just because you're sure people would really want to read about that. That is not how WP:NPOV works.--Crossmr (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read it WP:NOT many times and do not see any way in which a section on the scientific accuracy of Spore would violate it. It does not talk about whether the game is good or bad.  It simply points out the ways in which the game and real evolution are different, as found in a reliable source.  These are not opinions, propaganda or advocacy.  They're just a description of one aspect of the game that hardly constitutes extraordinary coverage.
 * It's starting to look like you think that this article should not have a section on scientific accuracy and that I do think that it should have one. Shall we seek edit resolution? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it gives too much weight to those views as opposed to other views of the game. It is at its heart a review of the game even if its not traditional. As pointed out above this column also has a history of doing non-serious pieces which even calls in to question how much weight this should be given in the first place. We don't give any other review of the game its own section, therefore we don't give this review its own section just because you think people will be really curious about scientific accuracy. Trying to put focus on that by giving it its own section for the reasons you've stated violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Science's treatment of Spore might be less serious than its treatment of, say stem cell research, but it is not less serious than Spore itself.
 * I think I've figured out the problem here: They're not views. They're facts and conclusions.  The article could be construed as a review of the game, but the information that I took from it and posted in this article isn't.  The section I added doesn't pass a judgment or express an opinion; it simply gives information.
 * Here's what I mean: "Spore is a bad game because it's scientifically inaccurate" is an opinion but "Spore's idea of evolution differs from the scientific one in way X" is a fact. "Spore gets an A in galactic structure and an F in mutation" are conclusions based on those facts. Do you see what I'm talking about?  I am treating the article in Science as a source for raw information, not a source for criticism, so it shouldn't be treated the same way we'd treat a standard game review.  We should seek edit resolution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No the problem is that you've given too much weight to a single article. What makes this article anymore weighty than any other article written about the game? Nothing. It hasn't received any extensive coverage itself. Whether you see something as opinion or fact (opinion more or less can become fact if everyone agrees its true) is immaterial. With so much press written about a subject, we don't give this much attention to a single source without a good reason. You haven't provided one.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're treating the matter of scientific accuracy as if the game reviews and the article in Science reflect two different sides of a debate. They don't.  They're not in conflict; they simply cover different topics.  The Science article covers one subject, whether the evolution in the game is scientifically accurate, and the game reviews cover another, whether the game is "good" by the standards of the gaming community.  The reason that this source gets a dedicated section and all the straight game reviews share one is because the Science article covers the subject matter in question and the game reviews cover a different one.
 * This is why, in the scientific accuracy section, I was careful to remove anything about whether scientific accuracy would make the game good or bad. It doesn't even say "this game is scientifically inaccurate." It simply lists the team's findings.  Even the quote "whatever the player thinks looks cool" does not have any inherent value judgment except perhaps that looking cool can be construed as good.
 * As for whether this source is good enough to support the information on its own, Science is the most prestigious scientific journal in the United States. It can be considered authoritative and reliable with regard to scientific matters, and it has been in numerous other Wikipedia articles.  In addition, Wikipedia policies consistently refer to "a reliable source." I haven't found anything that suggests that we would need more than one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've not once said this isn't a reliable source, but I've said repeatedly that its simply one view of the game that is no different than the thousands of other views that have been published in reliable sources. You're treating a column known for tongue in cheek articles as a serious and major commentary on the game which it is not. Plain and simple we don't give full sections to a single source. The scientific accuracy of the game has not received major coverage and therefore doesn't get major coverage in the article, especially when all you can base it off is a single group. It seems like you're going out of your way to miss the point. it doesn't matter if this is different than a traditional review. Its still part of the reception of the game. Nothing more. Whether its saying the game is good or accurate is immaterial.--Crossmr (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read all the things that you've said carefully. I simply don't find you to be right about them.  Wikipedia articles do occasionally use single sources for single sections.  I can see why it would be better to have more, but it isn't required. It sounds like we should seek edit resolution.Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is, I can see why it would be better to have more than one source ...and now we do! Care to take a look? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I actually think it looks better and more objective with just the Science content. What do you think? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks better but you need to see WP:CITE and the related template pages to see how to reuse a cite without creating a new entry. Its misleading when you duplicate citation entries. It makes people think there are far more sources than there really is.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
So, I looked at the way the section reads now, cleaned up a few things, and think it looks reasonable as is. I'm not sure I find WP:UNDUE compelling in this context, given the diverse RS citations and the size of the article. Can each of you (Crossmr and Darkfrog24) provide a one-sentence summary of your perception of the remaining issues needing a third opinion? Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it was clearly undue when he had just the single point of view. As long as there are more citations to establish not undue weight then its fine. Hence my comment above looks fine--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So the two of you have essentially worked this out and a 3O isn't really necessary any longer? Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3O was requested a couple days ago. The section probably looked a little more like this  at the time.  The issue is more moot than resolved, but I don't think it's going to be a problem.  My main concerns are 1. that Spore merits a section on the game's sceintific accuracy and 2. that the review in Science magazine is sufficient to source such a section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)